This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - sandycaesar
1
« on: December 10, 2012, 08:25:55 AM »
Conscripts are labelled "good as cannon fodder" for their Tent tooltip for a good reason; they die very, very quickly. So it's an excellent thing that you can reinforce a good five conscripts for two Volks killed (or even more with two Gren kills) in the mid-to-late game. They really shouldn't be primary troops once you have access to RBS and Guards, although I've found that it is generally worth upgrading them with full rifles when possible. (Unlike BARs for Riflemen, though, it's not generally worth teching to Weapon Reserves solely for the purpose of having five full-rifle Conscript squads rushing around the battlefield, hilarious though it might be.)
In terms of strategy, I figure it's much better to tech to T2 early on and get those RBSes out on the field as soon as you can. There might be a possibility of a T3 rush using lots and lots of full-rifle conscripts to hold the line, but in that case most of the upgrades in the Armory would be comparatively useless (since most Armory upgrades are for T2 and T2 related units), and as a result Conscripts remain costlier to reinforce. What's the expert opinion here?
2
« on: December 03, 2012, 12:08:11 AM »
All right, points taken. I'll be happily content with my RBS as they are, then.
3
« on: December 02, 2012, 08:15:24 AM »
The base suppression of the RBS/DP-28, you mean? I have no problem with that. The thing is that with the 4x boost, they could still suppress a charging enemy squad pretty quickly: all right, maybe not as quick as BARs with Suppressive Fire, but plenty quick enough to completely destroy MP-44 wielding infantry. It's an extremely, extremely powerful ability to have for free, all the more so since dead Strelky require only 2/3 the cost of Riflemen to replace
EDIT: the fact that it's completely free also has another aspect, in that players can spam the ability en masse. You wouldn't normally see three Rifle squads all using Suppressive Fire at once because it'd be very expensive in terms of MUNI, but since the RBS ability doesn't cost anything, it's easy to group two or three Strelky squads and have them all start rallying around their flags at once. In practical terms it means no Axis infantry can get close without getting suppressed and killed for the duration of the firefight.
4
« on: December 02, 2012, 12:31:59 AM »
Yeah, I'd prefer not to see a muni cost for the ability either, which means that fairest thing to do is probably to dial down the added suppression. If it's cut in half, for instance, then it'd take two squads of Red Banner Strelky to suppress enemies instead of just one. Actual numbers and percentages would have to be determined in playtesting.
And, yes, 40MU. My mistake.
5
« on: December 01, 2012, 12:13:05 PM »
Hi, I appreciate the change in the latest mod to give DP-28 equipped Strelky some suppression. However, the current implementation of their "Stand Your Ground" feature is quite broken. The 4x suppressive boost is comparable to the "Suppressive Fire" feature of American riflemen, being capable of stopping charging Axis infantry in their tracks, but it's completely free as opposed to costing 35 muni. That's in addition to the resistance to suppression, which alone is a powerful feature. Depending on what you intend with it, I suggest either giving the feature a muni cost of around 35 (comparable to American riflemen), or toning down the added suppression by a lot. DP-28s are already more generally useful than PPShes, but now a Strelky unit can stand off charging Assault Grenadiers, suppress them, and rout them, all at no munitions cost. Not that I don't appreciate the firepower of the Degtyarev as a Soviet player, but I suspect our Axis comrades might have some objections to file. 
6
« on: March 13, 2012, 09:12:25 PM »
Yes, Falls.
In any case, I see I'm the only one advocating for the idea. Pity, really. I wanted to see VDVs in blue berets tearing up the battlefield.
7
« on: March 13, 2012, 07:06:31 PM »
The main things about the Partisan counterpart units, though, is that they're strong enough to take on infantry if needed. Yes, they're raiders and scouts and infiltrators, but they can also supply some heavy firepower in the heavy infantry role when you need it. Partisans are mostly unable to accomplish those tasks.
8
« on: March 13, 2012, 04:21:59 AM »
I've made the case earlier for VDV as a reward unit, optionally replacing the Partisans; Urban Combat could do with a heavier-hitting midgame infantry punch. Partisans are useful, but they're not actual frontline combatants, per se, and I think it'd add some variety to give the Urban Combat doctrine an infantry unit that can stand and fight alongside Strelky, or hold the line if the player's going T1-T3. With Penal Units and Naval Infantry, Propaganda can do this almost too well, while the whole point of Breakthrough is to wait for the vehicles to roll in, but as things stand Urban Combat lacks a powerful midgame infantry unit. Besides, every other country has their airborne forces on display somewhere in their order of battle. It wouldn't do for the Rodina to fall behind.
9
« on: March 12, 2012, 10:00:51 PM »
I'm still holding out for reward infantry unit that's upgradeable to SKS carbines--shorter-ranged and less powerful than SVTs, but makes up for it with fewer movement penalties (encouraging attacks on the move).
10
« on: February 24, 2012, 03:30:17 AM »
You'd be taking away some of the AT power by giving them a wheeled Maxim, I think, especially as Naval Infantry PTRDs do provide a much-needed AT stopgap. Different strat, different role?
As for the ZiS-3s, it sounds a lot like having mobile OBRs in concept.
The biggest issue with the wheeled Maxim might actually be that everyone looks at it and sees "HMG", and then get confused why it's not suppressing.
11
« on: February 23, 2012, 05:22:40 AM »
Well, they are intended as reward units, after all. The alternative is having them as the reward unit for Navals, but I think Urban Combat needs the infantry support more.
12
« on: February 23, 2012, 05:01:53 AM »
Oo! I've thought of a potential way to distinguish them further: give the option to upgrade them with SKS carbines. Most sources I've seen agreed that there were a limited number of Simonovs on the Eastern Front in 1945, undergoing combat trials; there's no indication which lucky units got them, so may as well be the VDV. To distinguish between SVTs and SKSes, have the latter fire faster with fewer movement penalties, and be better at short range than medium range. The exact numbers and methodology will have to balanced via trial-and-error, needless to say.
I've also thought of another reward "unit", so to speak: 4.2 inch mortar WP barrage, as a replacement for the American Infantry Company's Off-Map Artillery. There's historical basis for this: the Chemical Mortar battalions were widely feared by the Germans for their HE and WP barrages. Instead of firing HE shells, though, they fire WP shells that:
* Lay down a heavy smokescreen instead of exploding in the massive artillery explosion. There are a lot of potential uses for a big smokescreen, after all.
* The explosion of impact will have a medium radius and deal immediate fire damage to infantry, like the Panzer Elite exploding boobies booby traps. Damage to vehicles will be fairly minimal. On the other hand, since it counts as fire damage, cover doe not protect against it.
* Optional: vehicles caught near blast center suffer some damage and are stunned, like a T17 WP shell ability.
* Unlike the Wehrmacht Incendiary Barrage, it does not leave patches of fire on the ground. Not only does it make it a more unique ability, it also changes the utility: it's not usable for mass area denial, and it can't burn out infantry from buildings over a long time. It also allows Infantry commanders to charge Rangers and Rifles into the smoke almost immediately.
* It's less damaging than the Arty Barrage; it should cost correspondingly less. At the same time it's still lethal to infantry caught within shellburst range, so it should cost quite a lot more than the Creeping Smoke Barrage for the British. I suggest a cost of 100 or 120 Muni or so.
Opinions?
13
« on: February 23, 2012, 03:41:25 AM »
So, I've just been doing some reading on the Soviet Airborne troops, and that got me thinking. After all, American paras, British commandos, and German Fallschirmjaegers are already represented: why not the Soviet VDV?
The VDV undertook three major combat drops in WWII: the 1942 Vyazma operation, the 1942 Demiansk pocket, and the 1943 Dnieper River crossing operation. In all three cases they got butchered horribly, but they still fought as leg infantry throughout the war. It's mentioned that when a drop went wrong (...all the time), they'd meet up with local partisans and conduct guerrilla warfare.
I'm thinking of having VDV troops replace either Naval Infantry, or Partisans. If the latter, they could give Urban Combat players a hard-hitting midgame infantry unit, which they need. Potentially they'd be more expensive than Partisans, better-armored, incapable of camouflage (or else only capable of Fallschirmjaeger camo), deadly at close range, in contrast to medium-range Navals. In exchange, they lose the ability to plant demolition charges and incendiary traps. Alternatively, they'd be good all-around infantry who can't infiltrate from buildings like Partisans can; that would distinguish them from Partisans and Fallschirmjaegers and change their nature from back-line ambushers to frontline combatants. Give 'em blue berets and telnyashkas and let 'em rip!
14
« on: February 14, 2012, 02:06:16 AM »
Would it be possible to post a side-by-side comparison of the Soviet Firebase, the British 25 pounder, and the American Howitzer? From what I see, the Allies have artillery coming out the wazoo. The Howitzer is doctrinal, true, but Infantry Company is a common choice anyway. So it might be possible to replace one of them with a reward unit; I have the idea of a 4.2 inch Chemical Mortar pit for the Americans firing incendiary/smoke WP, but I'd rather not toss that out as a proper suggestion just yet.
15
« on: October 24, 2011, 05:29:29 AM »
Really? T-90s are good versus Pumas? I've got to try that out. I've only been trying T1-T3 very recently, but in my experience T-90s haven't been much use against vehicles. They make up for it by terrorizing just about every kind of infantry to take the field, which is why I try to get a T-70 and then a T-90 (or a SU-85 if I need the anti-armor fast).
|
Show Posts