Pioneers after early game

no xd, conscript are worse from guards, also you talk about non vetted guards

no xd, conscript are worse from guards, also you talk about non vetted guards

The merged models benefit from the vet of the unit they merged into. So If you merge a vet 0 conscript into a vet 3 guard, those conscript models will instantly get additional accuracy and RA.

even if they do it applies to cons base stats, anyway just try merging and you will se how trash it is

they do not, anyway just try merging and you will se how trash it is

Yes they do. The only thing they do not inherit is the base model stats-which is armor and RA.

And I merge all the time. Soviet 1v1 is my most played game mode.

if it works for you i have no questions

I only mentioned having the same reinforce cost because you expressed disbelief that 4-7mp difference in reinforce costs would be a big deal since "It takes seconds to gain that amount of mp".

I think that a 4-7mp reinforce cost is pretty substantial, especially since you'll be using multiples of each of these units in every match you play-and given that the units the costs are associated with are bullet pinatas due to a lack of RA vet.

i believe it evens out in the end. ce's outside of being very cost effective and adding some dps from range dont do anything for the faction ín the late game that pio's cant do. ce's combat value last longer until about mid game but thats about it.
pio's can give beneftis to just about every situation they are in except fighting them selfs througout the game.

i think 4-7 mp difference is justified. i think we have to agree to disagree here.

Pios put tellers - nice. If you have a sweeper near t70 you make ost lose 50 munitions. Very easy to do as you have only one t70 on the field. They pose no threat to infantry so you don't bleed manpower if you send your infantry troops where tellers are without the sweeper.

Pios put minefields - with signs. And they don't wipe squads if you see them or retreat after the first lost model. Quite a lot of time. To sum up. You really have to be very much overextended or not careful with your troops to allow ost to deal any damage with their mines. Basically the player you are playing against must be a few time better at most game skills to make ost mines work. Other than that, any decent allied player will simply make ost player bleed munitions spotting and destroying their mines.

CEs put regular mines - they can kill halftracks as well as tellers. They will also bleed 4men squads terribly and make them lose a lot of their battle presence as they have to retreat after they hit them (50% dps and helth lost to one mine). They also crit engine on even the heavies tanks. They are less likely to be wasted as ost can't sweep everywhere.

CEs put demos. Still very powerful and kill whole squads more cheaply and more reliably than minefields. They are simply less visible and give you no reaction time if you don't spot them early enough. They can also damage vehicles while minefields are run over and cleared by vehicles. To sum up, as a soviet player you are much more likely to transfer the munitions you spend on soviet mines into mp bleed, less field presence of you opponent or destroying vehicles. Much less likely to waste them.

Pios have healing from vet 1 - it can help when a unit didn't lose any models and still makes you waste munitions on something you already paid for at the base.

CEs have triplares - for only 10 munition will realiaby klill 25% of a typical ostheer infantry unit. Will also provide vision.

To sum up, mines and vet one bonuses make ostheer much more likely to bleed munitions than soviets. The concept that tellers and minefields are powerful while soviet mines, demos and tripflares aren't is simply wrong. The opposite is true. But to know that one needs to play all armies.

CEs are very decent long range damage dealers, which makes them very good defensive unit as they can be parked behind cover or in building and deny it for ost for a very long time, as ost will never charge such position with grens or mgs. And all of this for just 170mp.

Pios can deal damage close range but will always lose when infantry units close in on them. They can't deal damage from far away where they are safe. It is simply better for a fragile squad unless again you are the better player and can make it work. With players on the same level, CEs will be a better option.

CEs repair speed is the same as that of pios while being cheaper to reinforce and purchase.

Pios can construct sandbags. CEs don't build sandbags only because cons build them stock. It is very strange that some of the forum members believe that the fact that instead of giving sandbags to grens (just like they were given to cons) ost player should pay more for a unit that got them instead of the unit that should have received such ability. It is simply so much more micro intensive to use sandbags for ost than for soviets because of it.

Extra sight. It would make sense if they were long range unit. Other than that it changes nothing. It is still much less than some of the allied units get stock without any influence on their price. The argument that you can crew a decrewed weapon with a 4 men fragile squad is just rubbish imo. It is so much better to simply have a cheaper squad than the more expensive one that this small sight bonus changes nothing. Look how much more powerful are UKF sappers for only 10mp more, how more useful rear echelons are lategame.

Pios can costruct bunkers for 150mp and 60 munitions. It is ridiculous to make them more expensive because of that. It would be simply much better to get a CE squad with a flamer for almost the same resources.

Pios put tellers - nice. If you have a sweeper near t70 you make ost lose 50 munitions. And if you don't, you lose the t70. Risk vs reward, play vs counterplay

Pios put minefields - with signs. The mine fields can wall off areas until sweeper arrives, can defend flanks, can wipe people on retreat, can wipe units of people who use tac map and fail to notice, can wipe light vehicles that pass through them. They are far from useless and I bet you don't even try to use them but still think they're bad.

CEs put regular mines - and nothing in the stock soviet army can put down tellers, while the 251 in the Ostheer roster can put down Schu mines. CEs aren't really more special than Pios, whose weakness is compensated by the Ost roster.

CEs put demos. They are good but you reject s-mines for being visible but think demos are good. Okay...

Pios have healing from vet 1 - it can help when a unit didn't lose any models and still makes you waste munitions on something you already paid for at the base. No, it lets you use 15 munitions to keep a full 4man squad or a weapons team or a sniper at the front without needing to retreat to base to heal and surrender field presence. Anyone who thinks field medkits are bad is deluding himself.

CEs have triplares - for only 10 munition will realiaby klill 25% of a typical ostheer infantry unit. Will also provide vision. They are good, but don't conscripts and guards have them too?

To sum up, mines and vet one bonuses make ostheer much more likely to bleed munitions than soviets. Noone bleeds munitions, Ostheer just has an extra choice of anti vehicle mine to compensate for their lack of AT light vehicle and has an area denial minefield. Noone's more likely to bleed munitions, if anything Ostheer is more likely to have 1 or 2 sweepers on the front out of sheer need to prevent bleed on their expensive squads.

CEs are very decent long range damage dealers - and pios are very decent cqc units that can screen for the mg42 and spot with their 42 sight.

Pios can deal damage close range but will always lose when infantry units close in on them. CEs always lose firefights from distance at the start and get dominated badly when enemy squads get veterancy. Pios can at least ambush long range squads later on for some benefit.

CEs repair speed is the same as that of pios while being cheaper to reinforce and purchase. Negligible amounts.

Pios can construct sandbags. CEs don't build sandbags only because cons build them stock.It is simply so much more micro intensive to use sandbags for ost than for soviets because of it. It's not, since Pioneers don't have to spam TM38 mines like CEs have to, so they have more time for sandbags.

Extra sight. It would make sense if they were long range unit. Kinda like the mg42. Oh wait...

Pios can costruct bunkers for 150mp and 60 munitions. So can Grenadiers yet I've never heard anyone say they shouldn't buff Grenadiers because they can build bunkers so I don't think building bunkers is relevant to unit strength and price comparisons.

Final verdict: Not much hope

Final verdict: Not much hope

Final comment?: I don't agree. IMO Price is inadequate: pios should be buffed to almost UKF sappers level lategame or their price should be lowered to 180mp after consecutive battlephases.

Edit: You didn't quote correctly and it is very difficult to respond to what You wrote. So a general comment to most of Your arguments. You keep repeating myths without much insight into the gameplay imo.

Just one example - risk vs reward. It is basics and everybody knows that - don't use such general arguments. The problem lies in the fact that the risk for ost is greater while the reward smaller. For Soviets, the risk is much smaller while the reward greater (the risk of wasting/losing munitions and manpower most importantly).

Soviets fight against OKW as well who have plenty of light vehicles

I think the respective costs of the two squads is fine atm. Do you disagree?

(a little late sorry)

I think they're more or less equal with same but different roles. I've mentioned a five man upgrade with t4 for pios mainly for utility, faster building/repairs and recrewing since mg42s have a pretty short shelf life if they're targeted by any sort of rocket arty. But certainly not for combat. In short, buff for support. The capping buff could be done away, it seems to mess with other shit anyway.

I also think soviets could do with a 't2' of sorts for their healing after t4 is built, increasing medic headcount and synergizing with seven man upgrade.

The ideas for both of these come from 'german engineering' vs soviet 'human wave'.

Extra sight. It would make sense if they were long range unit. Other than that it changes nothing.

Completely false it makes them great spotters for the best MG in the game. That's literally the reason they added it

Edit: +1 to Storm's points, I think he did a thorough enough job with that post

(a little late sorry)

I think they're more or less equal with same but different roles.

That's pretty much what I think of them. CEs give you less utility, slightly better direct combat. The utility that pios bring in comparison makes up the cost difference imo

I would reduce vet requirements of pios, as stuglife pointed out they are the same as Royals which makes little sense

Completely false it makes them great spotters for the best MG in the game. That's literally the reason they added it

Edit: +1 to Storm's points, I think he did a thorough enough job with that post

Better read what orangepest wrote.

Better read what orangepest wrote.

And keep ignoring what others wrote?
Come on dude, so much fuzz about such a small but imo proven/justyfied cost difference between ce's and pio's.
Soviets have more often then not the least mp reserves in the late game. It evens out the purchase and reinforce cost.

Most people if not all agree that buffing their vet requirements is the way forewards. Getting shared vet is my opnion a good way as well. Ce's suffer from low exp gain late game as well. Maybe they can leech of the cons upgrade at t4 and only get their exp requirements lowered nithing else.

And keep ignoring what others wrote?
Come on dude, so much fuzz about such a small but imo proven/justyfied cost difference between ce's and pio's.
Soviets have more often then not the least mp reserves in the late game. It evens out the purchase and reinforce cost.

Most people if not all agree that buffing their vet requirements is the way forewards. Getting shared vet is my opnion a good way as well. Ce's suffer from low exp gain late game as well. Maybe they can leech of the cons upgrade at t4 and only get their exp requirements lowered nithing else.

One ignores only the lack of arguments or changed facts

I agree that the differences are small - but this is what the balance is about on this game stage development. I don't think that the game needs any dramatic changes. I guess many people also agreed that the reinforcement cost is too high for pios, they agreed/suggested that researching each battlephase might lower the pio cost (reinforcement/purchase). There were also suggestions of buffing them to account for the higher price.

The merged models benefit from the vet of the unit they merged into. So If you merge a vet 0 conscript into a vet 3 guard, those conscript models will instantly get additional accuracy and RA.

Sounds amazing until you realize vet 0 Guards are far superior to vet 0 cons and cons squads have better veterancy, so merging into guards essentially gimps your squad.

To put it in perspective I tested vet 3 guards vs vet 3 guards with 5 merged models and the non merged squad won consistently with 50% health left.

To put it in perspective I tested vet 3 guards vs vet 3 guards with 5 merged models and the non merged squad won consistently with 50% health left.

Well, its not THAT bad, but yeah, there is no squad in game that isn't ending up weaker if you merge with it vs regular reinforcement.

Merge is a panic button to keep certain squad on field, it never was and never will be alternate reinforcement system.

Well, its not THAT bad, but yeah, there is no squad in game that isn't ending up weaker if you merge with it vs regular reinforcement.

Merge is a panic button to keep certain squad on field, it never was and never will be alternate reinforcement system.

Exactly, yet I find people keep referring to that awful merge guide on reddit that recommends merging into guards 24/7 and not reinforcing them. This is what happens when rank 600s make community guides.

Better read what orangepest wrote.

The fact I fully agree with orangepest and yet I find barely any hope for you after that “analysis” of yours should really ring a bell as to how wrong you are.

One ignores only the lack of arguments or changed facts

I agree that the differences are small - but this is what the balance is about on this game stage development. I don't think that the game needs any dramatic changes. I guess many people also agreed that the reinforcement cost is too high for pios, they agreed/suggested that researching each battlephase might lower the pio cost (reinforcement/purchase). There were also suggestions of buffing them to account for the higher price.

Those suggestiones where supported by fewer people. You and maybe 2 others. And the facts havent changed. People choose to interpet facts in different ways.

The facts are pio,s can do more however not in pure combat but in abilities and utility wich last the game. ce's shine earlier but are less relevant late game then pio,s.