Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
Eastern Front Mod (Read-Only) => Suggestions => Red Army Suggestions => Topic started by: Flanker1949 on May 31, 2012, 12:14:44 PM
-
OK, I know that the Soviet AT infantries are meant to be weak and historically they only had AT rifle and has no RPGs. That is not what I am suggesting, so please just bear with me for a sec and hear me out. ;)
Here are the main features of Soviet AT infantry in game:
1: AT-rifle is weak even the with the upgrade that allow 2 rifles in a team, especially when Panzer IV or above come out.
2: Once you achieved level 2 veterency you can have an extra man in the team.
3: If you lost your AT-rifle, you are going to be in a world of hurt (this is just too much).
So I suggest that once the "Man against tank" have been upgraded and you achieved level 2 veterency and get your extra man, you can upgrade your AT infantry on team bases with a Simonov PTRS 5 rounds semi-automatic anti-tank rifle. This way, the AT-infantry would be still weak against medium to heavy tanks, but it will be so devastating against light armor. And this upgrade will make the Soviet AT infantry so different with other AT-infantry from other factions, especially the Ostheer AT-rifle man only has the bolt action one. And will make things so interesting.
What do you guys think?
-
TH were never supposed to be a hard counter against any kind of tanks. So you probably deserved it when you still had TH while the first Panzer IV came out.a
-
At managment will change in the next soviet patch for good.
You should build a ATgun against tanks. In vcoh its the same.
-
I know it that TH were never supposed to be a hard counter against any kind of tanks and I should have AT gun. I am only suggesting this because I think this will make things more interesting by differenciate Soviet TH more from the rest of AT infantry, especially compare to the Ostheers. :) Also give them slightly better ability for slightly better mix infantry tactics while make them still weak against tanks.
Thanks for any considerations, guys.
-
well, basically what youre saying is that the tank hunters need a buff. i believe the tank hunters balance has been one last issues in this mod, as the balancers and devs have pretty much made it balanced. however, i also believe that tank hunters are workable as they are. they are not meant to be a counter to tanks, but instead a ambush unit, like cloaking them in cover and planting an AT mine, and then when enemy armor hits the mine, they come out and finish the job. the only reason you shouldn't build an AT gun in the game is if you are playing against pe before the p4 hits the field. TH will do great against halftrack and light vehicles.
TL:DR, TH will get a change in the next patch, but that will be the end of changes, probably for the soviets.
-
i also believe that tank hunters are workable as they are. they are not meant to be a counter to tanks, but instead a ambush unit, like cloaking them in cover
There is still a problem with THs stepping out of cover.
OT sort of :When you change the parameters for getting a squad into cover by a large enough value to make a difference the system starts to oscillate too much. If this means anything to you and you have an idea about correcting it contact JoJo or me about it.
the only reason you shouldn't build an AT gun in the game
is if you have tanks to begin with. The best defence is a good offence in this regard.
-
Well the whole "to get AT gun or not" thing is debate-able and every side has their different opinion but that's for another topic :P
-
Actually i would like to have the PTRS on the Navals. Navals should deal more damage to vehicles but they have only the PTRD. We buffed the damage the PTRD does in the current patch, but changing it with the PTRS might be a possibility too.
-
Well Killar its not a bad idea, but personally I don't think a non-specialized unit should get this type of AT rifle. The Tank Hunters should get an upgrade to PTRS-41 when they get Men Against Tanks, because it would fit with them much better than with the NI, who should keep the PTRD.
-
Hi, guys. I think some of you may have misunderstood me (sorry for my poor English, it is possible that I misunderstood you guys).
I am not suggestion big change to boost TH to make them have the ability to destroy tanks. I suggest that they can only get this PTRS upgrade once the "Man against Tank" is purchased and only after they achieved level 2 veterency, and you can only upgrade them individually just like you upgrade the recoilless on the para-troopers. And even if they do get the PTRS, they would be still weak against Tanks, so that will not change the gaming taste at all, while in the same time, differentiate themselves more from other AT infantry.
-
Well Killar its not a bad idea, but personally I don't think a non-specialized unit should get this type of AT rifle. The Tank Hunters should get an upgrade to PTRS-41 when they get Men Against Tanks, because it would fit with them much better than with the NI, who should keep the PTRD.
+1
-
Well Killar its not a bad idea, but personally I don't think a non-specialized unit should get this type of AT rifle. The Tank Hunters should get an upgrade to PTRS-41 when they get Men Against Tanks, because it would fit with them much better than with the NI, who should keep the PTRD.
I think this idea can be applied(or something similar related to PTRS), Walki & Rizz might know why I say this :P.
-
Thanks for the support!! ;D Can't wait to see it in the next patch. :)
-
Well Killar its not a bad idea, but personally I don't think a non-specialized unit should get this type of AT rifle. The Tank Hunters should get an upgrade to PTRS-41 when they get Men Against Tanks, because it would fit with them much better than with the NI, who should keep the PTRD.
Do you mean only the model change or an increase in firepower? Navals ARE specialized AT infantry just like Rangers. Why should i call navals in when i get the better TH´s (increased firepower) as basic units?
-
Do you mean only the model change or an increase in firepower? Navals ARE specialized AT infantry just like Rangers. Why should i call navals in when i get the better TH´s (increased firepower) as basic units?
People will still call Marine because Marine is an all purpose infantry, they have semi-automatic rifle, light machine gun and AT rifle.
-
I won´t call them in anymore because i get better AT infantry with TH´s :)
-
Well Killar its not a bad idea, but personally I don't think a non-specialized unit should get this type of AT rifle. The Tank Hunters should get an upgrade to PTRS-41 when they get Men Against Tanks, because it would fit with them much better than with the NI, who should keep the PTRD.
Do you mean only the model change or an increase in firepower? Navals ARE specialized AT infantry just like Rangers. Why should i call navals in when i get the better TH´s (increased firepower) as basic units?
I won´t call them in anymore because i get better AT infantry with TH´s :)
Tank Hunters should be more effective at AT role than NI. They should get the best available equipment for that role. As Neosdark notes NI are non-specialized infantry. They are best called-in when a gap exists in your TO&E. If you have a T2 Start (no T1) call them in for infantry. If You are using a Fast Tank start (No T2) call them in as AT counter. If you are using a T1 Ing/Stormovie start they can be used for both AT and AI roles.
There are better uses for your resources than calling-in NI when you have other suitable counters.
-
I was just thinking, maybe we can even give the Shock Guards the same kind of buff with an AVT-40 assault rifle: ;)
http://www.royalgunpowdermills.com/armoury.php?mode=2&cat=Fully+Automatic+and+Self+Loading+Rifles+and+Carbines&item=118
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?170286-Questions-about-the-SVT-40-Tokarev-rifle
http://www.tircollection.com/t9718-tokarev-svt-40-avt-40
-
Well Killar its not a bad idea, but personally I don't think a non-specialized unit should get this type of AT rifle. The Tank Hunters should get an upgrade to PTRS-41 when they get Men Against Tanks, because it would fit with them much better than with the NI, who should keep the PTRD.
Do you mean only the model change or an increase in firepower? Navals ARE specialized AT infantry just like Rangers. Why should i call navals in when i get the better TH´s (increased firepower) as basic units?
Not just change model, and not increase in firepower. But increase in firing rate. Dang!! Dang!! Dang!! Dang!! Dang!! 5 rounds!!! ;)
-
I was just thinking, maybe we can even give the Shock Guards the same kind of buff with an AVT-40 assault rifle: ;)
http://www.royalgunpowdermills.com/armoury.php?mode=2&cat=Fully+Automatic+and+Self+Loading+Rifles+and+Carbines&item=118
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?170286-Questions-about-the-SVT-40-Tokarev-rifle
http://www.tircollection.com/t9718-tokarev-svt-40-avt-40
Yeah no, AVT-40 shouldn't be included. It was uncontrollable in full auto so it made more sense to just keep it on semi auto, thus making it an SVT-40 anyway.
And Killar, they (Naval Infantry) cannot be specialized AT infantry since their AT weapons must be bought.
-
Well that's not strictly true. Airborne and Stormtroopers can both be specialised AT infantry.
-
Dennis I'm not gonna argue with you because I doubt it will get me anywhere.
-
Dennis I'm not gonna argue with you because I doubt it will get me anywhere.
LOL that isn't necessarily true but that is generally the outcome :P
-
Dennis I'm not gonna argue with you because I doubt it will get me anywhere.
LOL that isn't necessarily true but that is generally the outcome :P
actually, i think it might be ;D
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.
-
Well that's not strictly true. Airborne and Stormtroopers can both be specialised AT infantry.
Dennis how would you compare Storms with 2 Shreks to THs with 2 Ptrds in AT role?
-
No sharks I am not being sarcastic. If you prefer I will be happy to change my request to TH's/2PTRDs to Grenadiers/2 shreks.
If I were being sarcastic I would have suggested a VG/4shreks or a PG with 2 picked up Wher shreks and +3 off vet.
-
No sharks I am not being sarcastic. If you prefer I will be happy to change my request to TH's/2PTRDs to Grenadiers/2 shreks.
If I were being sarcastic I would have suggested a VG/4shreks or a PG with 2 picked up Wher shreks and +3 off vet.
Ok sorry for saying that
So if this is the case then what is there to compare b/w dual shrecks and dual PTRD? The shrecks are clearly better. And the Grenadiers are clearly better thenselves. The only advantage to a TH over a Gren/Storm squad would be the AT mine or AT nade which are specifically designed to kill tanks while the Grens/Storms are more orientied to fighting infantry but have a shreck option to help counter armor. Or cost. 150 muni + 300 mp over 280 mp (and w/e Men Against Tanks cost)
-
Airborne infantry blow at everything else unless they pick up weapons as they travel. You can consider them anti-tank / anti-bunker
Stormtroopers are specialized anti-anythingyouwantthemtobe
-
Stormtroopers are specialized anti-anythingyouwantthemtobe
loL Im sure Relic will love that title :P
-
The fact of the matter was I was going to make a similar comparison to Dennis (TH vs. NI).
My problem is that TH are fairly useless at what they should be doing. If they are AT infantry (or AV/AT stopgap) then they should be better at it than a jack of trades unit such as the NI. If NIs are better at it than the TH themselves, then why bother with TH at all. Engies get cheap mines so I can place those. NI have more health, firepower, soldiers per squad, and are useful against infantry even with the PTRD upgrade. Plus they can build sandbags, so I an build my self some nice cover and fight off those ACs or Puma, and if necessary retreat under smoke cover. So what are the pluses of the much loved TH?
Airborne are specialized AT cause like Cranial said, otherwise they are useless. Jack of All Trades troops like NI, Stormies, and perhaps Rangers (notice perhaps) shouldn't be better than units designed to do a certain job, unless said job doesn't exist in the army
-
I guess it's because they are doctrine specific. They are that certain element of that doctrine; like Flak 88 would be the AT component in some doctrines while Rangers are AT in another. A person (typically but not always) shouldn't commit themselves to a certain doctrine for the sole purpose of getting a unit to spam. TH are kind of lack luster and deal minimal damage to anything above light skinned vehicles (basically tanks).
Other than that idk why :P
Edit: Oh and they cost alot more :P
-
NI do more straight up damage and take more hits but lack the mines and AT nades to harm heavy vehicles properly. NI are much more expensive as well, in initial cost, reinforce, MU cost and upkeep cost. They lack the powerful ambush bonuses that THs have, which actually make THs have better guns than the NI PTRDs.
Neither of them have any real infantry fighting capability when fully AT specialised (NI). Both of them just have very basic rifles. NI have molos which are somewhat effective. They also have smoke. It's a tossup to what you want out of your unit. NI are better in the flat out assault role, where a kiting enemy means you can't take advantage of the TH abilities. However, THs are better on defense, as well as targeting engine damaged vehicles. THs are much more cost effective as well.
-
That is why I am suggesting this upgrade with PTRS-41 ;)
And if anyone thinks that is still not enough, I would suggest to give them a SN-42 ;)
-
A semiautomatic rifle with 5 PTRD shots in a row that even benefits from the ambush bonus will be very OP imo.
I know that soviets have currently problems to stop flanking vehicles but this will not be dealt with op TH shots. In the next patch this will be fixed in another better way, where TH have a synergy with that new ability, so stay tuned.
-
Sounds like a Rapid Fire ability :D
-
What does this "OP" mean??
-
Overpowered - too strong
-
How can that be overpowered?? Even if they use semi-auto it still can't hurt tanks. It is still way weaker than RPGs.
-
How can that be overpowered?? Even if they use semi-auto it still can't hurt tanks. It is still way weaker than RPGs.
You want to rapidly increase the fire rate of a PTRD by changing it to a PTRS, having 2 per squad. Imagine you have 2 TH´s which have 4 PTRD that shoot 8 (4 x 2bullets) shots (i pikcked a random fire time). Now you exchange the PTRD with the PTRS and shoot 20 bullets (4 x 5bullets) at the same time as the former PTRD. That this is the most cost effective weapon i don´t have to say :P
-
And considering how the PTRD seems to deal considerable dmg to infantry (which I believe should be looked into) they would be spammed once again.
-
And considering how the PTRD seems to deal considerable dmg to infantry (which I believe should be looked into) they would be spammed once again.
-
I think you may be confusing the issue Shark. My observations indicate that THs do more damage with their rifles to infantry. After MAT their effectiveness goes done. I don't really know what the AIclass is for THs with one PTRD. When a second Ptrd is added the aiclass against infantry goes up 5. when the 5 man (with a rifle) is added at vet2 another 5 is added to aiclass. against inf. If you think about it aiclass values are given on the battle GUI, bottom center. just select the squad under the three mentioned conditions and check the values.
I have used THs as low grade infantry for a long time. I don't Spam it though. 3-4 squads is the most I ever use. I like your new username
-
I like your new username
TY :)
I think you may be confusing the issue Shark. My observations indicate that THs do more damage with their rifles to infantry. After MAT their effectiveness goes done.
Im not sure what MAT means but what I meant was at close range the PTRD shots seem to land more often than they should on infantry (idk if its unintentional when they got a close range buff) and the shots do a good deal of damage (nothing monstrous like a shreck) but still alot of dmg for one shot.
-
Dont rely on UI anti(x) class values.
Looking at them in corsix, in a word, TH are shit. I wouldn't buy them over an atg. Ever. EVER. I'd rather take NI and use their *very* good SVT40s with a single PTRD. Yes they have a higher reinforcement cost and upkeep, but theyre so much more effective that that argument is null and void.
-
Volks what are the aiclass values for THs it doesn't make much sense that AI would go up 5 when a 2 Prtd is added. there should be some effect on ALveh and AMveh. at the very least. I use Ths as a soft counter AT and as low grade infantry. The savings 80mp? I put into my tank budget. 5 NIs vs 5THs is about the mp cost for a T34. Having 2 T34s vs infantry works pretty well and double teaming enemy armor is the right way to go IMO.
-
Im not sure what MAT means
men against tanks.
-
How can that be overpowered?? Even if they use semi-auto it still can't hurt tanks. It is still way weaker than RPGs.
You want to rapidly increase the fire rate of a PTRD by changing it to a PTRS, having 2 per squad. Imagine you have 2 TH´s which have 4 PTRD that shoot 8 (4 x 2bullets) shots (i pikcked a random fire time). Now you exchange the PTRD with the PTRS and shoot 20 bullets (4 x 5bullets) at the same time as the former PTRD. That this is the most cost effective weapon i don´t have to say :P
I said upgrade 1 member in the TH team only after they have achieved level 2 veterency and only after you purchase the "men against tank" upgrade. And you only upgrade them individually like upgrade recoil-less to the paratroopers.
-
Making an overpowered weapon extremely costly to get to does not solve the problem.
It would be like saying that at Vet 1 and for 100 more munitions the Sniper can get a SVT-40 and shoot 10 sniper shots at once instead of 1.
TL;DR: This probably won't happen. What you propose is too strong.
-
I didn't propose that.
And I am not suggesting automatic burst, I am suggesting semi-auto, like US M1 Grand.
-
Well you want to buff PTRD weapon. Is it too weak? Why is it too weak?
1: AT-rifle is weak even the with the upgrade that allow 2 rifles in a team, especially when Panzer IV or above come out.
2: Once you achieved level 2 veterency you can have an extra man in the team.
3: If you lost your AT-rifle, you are going to be in a world of hurt (this is just too much).
1. you need atgun
2. yes that normally happens
3. what do you mean? AFAIK you get the PTRD back if you reinforce.
Did you consider the benefits you gain by vet for the PTRS?
Did you consider that a PTRD shoots 1 time before reload and a PTRS shoots 5 times before reload?
AFAIk they have the same bullets
-
Yes, that is all I am saying, 5 shoots before reload. And sometimes when enemy kill you, you will loss your AT rifle and even reinforce wouldn't get it back, just like sometimes German soldier loss its RPG. You will only have 1 left.
-
And sometimes when enemy kill you, you will loss your AT rifle and even reinforce wouldn't get it back, just like sometimes German soldier loss its RPG. You will only have 1 left.
But thats no reason to buff TH´s with PTRS.
Pls explain why Tankhunter need that new weapon?
-
Yes, that is all I am saying, 5 shoots before reload. And sometimes when enemy kill you, you will loss your AT rifle and even reinforce wouldn't get it back, just like sometimes German soldier loss its RPG. You will only have 1 left.
In this case it's your fault. No issue here, rangers don't get their Bazooka back either.
-
Indeed, if you loose a PTRD or a DP-28 you don't get them back after reinforcing because that was Relic's way ;).
-
And sometimes when enemy kill you, you will loss your AT rifle and even reinforce wouldn't get it back, just like sometimes German soldier loss its RPG. You will only have 1 left.
But thats no reason to buff TH´s with PTRS.
Pls explain why Tankhunter need that new weapon?
I already did earlier
-
And sometimes when enemy kill you, you will loss your AT rifle and even reinforce wouldn't get it back, just like sometimes German soldier loss its RPG. You will only have 1 left.
But thats no reason to buff TH´s with PTRS.
Pls explain why Tankhunter need that new weapon?
I already did earlier
I second Killar, I don't see any valid reasons..
Increasing your shot rate to 30 shot a minute as opposed to 6 will just kill 5X more vehicles.
-
still has no effect against Tanks and its ability against vehicles is still inferior than troops with RPGs
-
This is a L2P issue. I'm 100% sure at this point.
-
I Don't know that the Tank Hunters need a buff but I think it makes sense that they should use the same weapon as the NI's. It has never made sense to me why CoH uses different models for the same weapons. THe same thing goes for EFs Mosin Rifle. Change the Squads specs not the weapons specs. Lest you want to deal with a PG squad at +3 Off Vet and 2-4 Wher Shreks. Now thats a bit OP.
-
Primarily for balance sake, but a weapon isn't equal in all hands either. Volks with poor training will be less accurate and worse than a trained grenadier despite using the same K98.
-
What's a L2P??
-
Primarily for balance sake, but a weapon isn't equal in all hands either. Volks with poor training will be less accurate and worse than a trained grenadier despite using the same K98.
I think this is a good thing Dennis. Shouldn't Tank hunters be better able to effectively use PTRDs than the general purpose NI squads?
-
THs are specialised at fighting tanks but it doesn't mean they're trained. NI are better able to find weak spots on an enemy vehicle, thus they do more damage.
Above all else, this is a game. The units need to be balanced have have good gameplay flow. Units require different stats on their weapons to account for training level and so on. Advanced troops have better weapons, even if it is realistically the same gun. Not to mention that in this case, THs still actually do more damage than NI when they attack from ambush.
-
THs are specialised at fighting tanks but it doesn't mean they're trained. NI are better able to find weak spots on an enemy vehicle, thus they do more damage. .... Above all else, this is a game. The units need to be balanced have have good gameplay flow. Units require different stats on their weapons to account for training level and so on....
Advanced troops have better weapons, even if it is realistically the same gun. Not to mention that in this case, THs still actually do more damage than NI when they attack from ambush.
I am not sure why elite troops that are trained to operate large caliber cannon at ranges beyond their range of sight and are noted for their fighting prowess in all fields of combat (IE a general purose Squad), should be able to do more damage than soldiers. who use a given weapon every day.
NI are OP. They are not core squads. They are given all kinds of buffs to improve their in game performance. They have superior squad stats to begin with and are given super variants of weapons. They are called in at 2CP this isn't balanced against anything but Relics implementation of 2CP call-ins for selected elite squads. I do not suggest that NIs be nerfed except maybe to change the CP cost required to call-in these squads.
I think the DevTeam should switch the order of appearance for Red Tide and Naval infantry for the next patch. NIs are over relied upon in the game right now. That is not balanced from a mod perspective. And I don't think it is good for gameplay. Players should have the opportunity to explore the core squads to see if they are actually balanced. At that point the NIs could be rolled back to the first slot in the CT in the following patch if necessary.
It is arguable that PE Tank Busters are better trained to pick out weak spots in enemy AFVs than generalized Storms, Grens, or NI. They are equiped with a weaker version of the Shrek than the Wher version. Advanced troops have better weapons, even if it is realistically the same gun.
I think we will agree vetted troops are more advanced and have better training. I think that we also agree that furnishing PE tank buster squads with the superior Wher Shrek is OP as well.
-
Learn 2 play, or "Learn to play".
-
If NI are changed, then the traditional tactic of using them to stall for tanks will also change :P
-
Yes that is correct Sharky but the traditional tactic (aka soft counter) to stall tanks is Tank hunters. The traditional counter to tanks from an infantrymen's POV is ATG. I don't think NI need to be changed. I think there should only be one type of PTRD 41 for all soft at counters.
-
I don't know if you guys would approve this but i suggest that give the NI ability to throw AT Krak grenade after they archive vet1 and excuse me if i use the wrong topic to suggest this. In general, i would suggest that the NIs should some automatic weapons at start like a couple of PPSh-41 and remove the petro bomb ability because they seem unsuitable for an elite squad.
-
I don't know if you guys would approve this but i suggest that give the NI ability to throw AT Krak grenade after they archive vet1 and excuse me if i use the wrong topic to suggest this. In general, i would suggest that the NIs should some automatic weapons at start like a couple of PPSh-41 and remove the petro bomb ability because they seem unsuitable for an elite squad.
Might as well give them AT mines, a frag grenade too ::)
Every main infantry squad in the game can obtain SMGs except the Naval Squads. You want them to have SMGs too?
-
I don't know if it violates to the balance of the game but i think it's reasonable for them to use SMGs because realistically SMGs are portable enough for landing assault. Or you can give the squad leader one just to look more 'badass'.
-
Or you can give the squad leader one just to look more 'badass'.
THis seems reasonable enough. Just like Axis infantry have a STG44 that doesnt actually act like a STG44
-
NI already have a unique SVT which is badass enough (even though it's only like an M1 Garand).
-
Wait did Otto suggest that a 200 muni ability be available at 2 cp?
-
Wait did Otto suggest that a 200 muni ability be available at 2 cp?
I did indeed make this suggestion. I don't think it would last for more than one patch before it is rolled back. I think the balancers and average players should get the opportunity to explore other avanues of early game Soviet tech development with out relying on 2CP NIs. The Red Tide should be cabable of dealing with the Blitzkrieg Storms threat. Have you tried to use Red Tide in mid or late game? It really screws with the Pop of the Sov faction at that point. 200 muni is pretty cheap granted but early game do you have enough munis to make multiple call-ins? As it stands even if you sacrifice the NKVD troops You Still get a Guard Squad cheap and ready to vet. Heh Heh!
-
I highly doubt anyone will have 200 muni to use early game. Especially since mines + molotovs are always being used.
-
And you will get a Strelky squad NOT a Guard squad
-
...
NI are OP. They are not core squads. They are given all kinds of buffs to improve their in game performance. They have superior squad stats to begin with and are given super variants of weapons. They are called in at 2CP this isn't balanced against anything but Relics implementation of 2CP call-ins for selected elite squads. I do not suggest that NIs be nerfed except maybe to change the CP cost required to call-in these squads.
I think the DevTeam should switch the order of appearance for Red Tide and Naval infantry for the next patch. NIs are over relied upon in the game right now. That is not balanced from a mod perspective. And I don't think it is good for gameplay.
...
IMO NI are fine as they are. How comes that a lot guys and balancers played hundreds of competitve 1v1s and never saw a problem with NI while you think NI are OP by judging and arguing from compstomp-perspective?? Actually I never heard someone complaining about NI.
You should play some 1v1 vs USA-player with air-doc. Lets see what you think about acc/dmg/range and pene of RRs...
And why have you ViP-icon? He? Whats this??
-
Since the Red tide will be available at 2 CP, anyone could give me a suggestion on how to use it properly ? Since i find it quite wasteful to spend 200 muni on 3 squads of infantry.
-
Since the Red tide will be available at 2 CP, anyone could give me a suggestion on how to use it properly ? Since i find it quite wasteful to spend 200 muni on 3 squads of infantry.
No one ever said it was definitive it was just suggested :P
-
It most certainly won't be coming at 2cps. However, we might have a look at the pop thing.
-
It most certainly won't be coming at 2cps. However, we might have a look at the pop thing.
The pop thing is the fact why its balanced. You can´t spam it, otherwise you are popcapped. If you are lucky you will use it 2 times in a 1vs1 so you will have 6 squads on the field which gives a huge capping and flanking power but not more. Thats why we can make it cost only 200mun, which its worth it. We don´t need to higher the costs to prevent spamming.
This ability comes very handy if you loose all your concripts and need reinforcements.
-
It most certainly won't be coming at 2cps. However, we might have a look at the pop thing.
The pop thing is the fact why its balanced. You can´t spam it, otherwise you are popcapped. If you are lucky you will use it 2 times in a 1vs1 so you will have 6 squads on the field which gives a huge capping and flanking power but not more. Thats why we can make it cost only 200mun, which its worth it. We don´t need to higher the costs to prevent spamming.
This ability comes very handy if you loose all your concripts and need reinforcements.
Keyword Might ;)
-
The pop cost is a little high though. Perhaps removing the pop cost of the commissars (in the same manner as conscripts so squad count is OK) might lower it by 2 and make it slightly more viable.
-
Or removing the extra Strelky/ guard squad that arrives. (If it switches place with the NI call in).
-
You'all raise many valid points.
I like the notion that Dennis has for eliminating or at least reducing the CS pop. I think this would work for 1v1 play if makes 3 guards squads possible. I think it is seldom resource effective to research a Squad upg for less than three squads. Fuel costs being the issue in this case.
The 200 muni cost is what makes this ability balanced as much as pop. If you can afford the 400 muni and 20 pop and wish to do so to obtain six squads: two of which are guard squads you don't have to tech for; why not. There will be one less tank or firebase in your Order of battle. To suggest that 200 muni is to much to pay for 3 squads called in at one time is personal tactical preference. I have found using just one call-in of Red Tide does nasty things to my battle planning during any given game. This of course is my own damn fault. I think ultimately the Guards will be switched out of this call-in. Probably for Strelky. Two Elite Squad call-ins on one side of a Tech tree is one too many.
I have an concern that the Balance Team concentrates too much on balancing 1v1 play to the detriment of all the other modes of play in the mod. I do not wish to be critical here. To me it is important that the success of the EF_Mod that 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 play be balanced for both SP and MP in context of the Mod as a whole. Many times I think the crys of OP are based on the effects of Spamming in 1v1. If 4v4 play is considered and each of 4 players builds 2 Katyushas = 8 Katyushas = SPAM. I don't think anyone would consider 2 uses of a Katyusha untoward in this case. I work as an AI consultant for the Devs. I am working diligently to reduce or eliminate AI SPAMs. I know the Balance Team is doing likewise for MP.
Regarding the suggested 2CP call-in cost for Red Tide. Is this really any different than a 2 CP cost for NIs? I think that infantry call-ins should not be available before a 3CP expenditure of CP. I also believe that Tank call-ins should not be available before 4CP expenditure. (Ignore the 2CP Sturm issue. Relic should have corrected that in the 2.6.0.2 patch). Viewing the concept of CP acquisition with dimensionless analysis 2 CPs requires 120 exp points. 3 CPs require 200 exp points and 4 CPs require 280 exp points. (Do not confuse vet exp with CP exps). 2 CP is pretty easy to obtain.
-
I have an concern that the Balance Team concentrates too much on balancing 1v1 play to the detriment of all the other modes of play in the mod. I do not wish to be critical here. To me it is important that the success of the EF_Mod that 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 play be balanced for both SP and MP in context of the Mod as a whole. Many times I think the crys of OP are based on the effects of Spamming in 1v1. If 4v4 play is considered and each of 4 players builds 2 Katyushas = 8 Katyushas = SPAM. I don't think anyone would consider 2 uses of a Katyusha untoward in this case. I work as an AI consultant for the Devs. I am working diligently to reduce or eliminate AI SPAMs. I know the Balance Team is doing likewise for MP.
You are critical. Thats why you have a concern.
1v1 and 2v2 gameplay is the core of coh and thats what we are balancing. What do you mean with other modes in EF?
3v3 and 4v4 match ups will never be balanced in EF. These are not balanced in coh either and there are only 4 factions avaiable.
Afaik there is no concern about spamming in EF. Do you have a concern?
Pls elaborate your point about the detriment to other modes. Maybe i didnt get your point.
I think that infantry call-ins should not be available before a 3CP expenditure of CP. I also believe that Tank call-ins should not be available before 4CP expenditure.
Why is that?
-
Regarding the suggested 2CP call-in cost for Red Tide. Is this really any different than a 2 CP cost for NIs? I think that infantry call-ins should not be available before a 3CP expenditure of CP. I also believe that Tank call-ins should not be available before 4CP expenditure. (Ignore the 2CP Sturm issue. Relic should have corrected that in the 2.6.0.2 patch). Viewing the concept of CP acquisition with dimensionless analysis 2 CPs requires 120 exp points. 3 CPs require 200 exp points and 4 CPs require 280 exp points. (Do not confuse vet exp with CP exps). 2 CP is pretty easy to obtain.
They are not the same thing. Lets say you've been cut off and have little to no fuel or muni. You can still purchase NI with MP which is available to everyone but muni and fuel rely on the engagements you've been successful in. And I dont really see whats wrong with a 2 CP call in. Airborne: 375mp and 2 CP, Stormtroopers: 375m and 2CP, NI: 360 MP IIRC and 2 CP. Commando is 3 CP and 560 MP but everything for brits is more and they are very powerful.
-
Well, if Balancers cannot find something wrong with Navals and there are no replays to backup the claims, there is nothing we can do about it ;). In other words they should be fine. Maybe the only problem would be than they do not require something to purchase their equipment unlike Stormies... and unlike Airborne, Navals are capable of handling infantry and vehicles alike for a 2CP call-in. But that can be fixed by setting requirements on their upgrades, not by moving them as second upgrade.
I'm not sure if swapping Red Tide position with Naval Infantry position is a good change. Red Tide is not going to help you that early unlike Navals, let alone that if the current order makes sense(as Sir Shark told us, let alone that you won't use Red Tide that early).
-
No one will have 200 munitions in the early game. Then, it's going into upgrades and mines and other stuff.
-
Hmmm...I think the TH needs a slight buff to pen or slight buff to damage. Hard to use a TH to keep a puma in control. Ik that at closer range the TH gets more pen than the panzershrecks but so what? The puma will kill you with its 20mm cannon.