Login

russian armor

Gaurds Assualt Troops

13 May 2020, 15:58 PM
#41
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


*Gaurds :P
But yeah, it's either change the halftrack to something similar but more interesting (and since it is a Lend lease doctrine, any allied vehicle could do) or make the guards pay munitions for the thompson upgrade.
I mean on paper the M5 + ass guard has a very good price, the problem is that the M5 is not that interesting (maybe 1-2, one for AA and one for reinforcement, but any more than that is a waste).

My suggestion would be replace m5 with m3. Allow units to build separately from HQ after T4.

Same would go for Ostheer HT where passenger could replaced by "new" like "repair support pioneers" (where available with heavy armor doctrine) "urban assault panzer grenadiers" (redesigned/balanced)
13 May 2020, 16:01 PM
#42
avatar of Unit G17

Posts: 498

jump backJump back to quoted post13 May 2020, 15:58 PMVipper

My suggestion would be replace m5 with m3. Allow units to build separately from HQ after T4.

Same would go for Ostheer HT where passenger could replaced by "new" like "repair support pioneers" (where available with heavy armor doctrine) "urban assault panzer grenadiers" (redesigned/balanced)


You know that one half track from the AA campaign which had access to aura repair? Perhaps that could fit this doctrine, replacing conscript repair entirely. Then the unbundled ass guards could get their very own ability slot.
13 May 2020, 16:03 PM
#43
avatar of Osinyagov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 May 2020, 15:58 PMVipper

My suggestion would be replace m5 with m3. Allow units to build separately from HQ after T4.

Same would go for Ostheer HT where passenger could replaced by "new" like "repair support pioneers" (where available with heavy armor doctrine) "urban assault panzer grenadiers" (redesigned/balanced)

Logically, if AsGuards will have vehicle not from default tech. Like UC or WC52(variant of WC51, looks the same).
German assault groups shouldn't have infantry from default tech as well. Assault grens or Stormtroops will be more correct imo. Or even made it buildable for all docs.
13 May 2020, 16:04 PM
#44
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Logically, if AsGuards will have vehicle not from default tech. Like UC or WC52(variant of WC51, looks the same).
German assault groups shouldn't have infantry from default tech as well. Assault grens or Stormtroops will be more correct imo. Or even made it buildable for all docs.


M3 is not available to their tech. It is only available as doctrinal USF unit. (I was not talking about M3A3)
13 May 2020, 16:25 PM
#45
avatar of Osinyagov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 May 2020, 16:04 PMVipper


M3 is not available to their tech. It is only available as doctrinal USF unit. (I was not talking about M3A3)

I am not sure it is hisotically correct. AFAIK Red Army used M3 Halftrack only as base for SU-57 (T48).
13 May 2020, 16:52 PM
#46
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

USF's Assault M3 or a WC51 with unique abilities would be cool and allow the group to be cheaper.
13 May 2020, 17:01 PM
#47
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


I am not sure it is hisotically correct. AFAIK Red Army used M3 Halftrack only as base for SU-57 (T48).

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/m3-half-track-armored-carrier.html

4 photo
13 May 2020, 17:14 PM
#48
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

IMO biggest change would be to fix their vet and maybe give them smoke grenades. Obviously separating them from the M5 and making them 2 CP would also make it easier for them to be fit into build orders.

VET :
13 May 2020, 17:16 PM
#49
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

USF's Assault M3 or a WC51 with unique abilities would be cool and allow the group to be cheaper.
Clearly the answer is to make them come in the British Special weapons M3 so that you can give Vickers to your Penals :crazy:
13 May 2020, 17:17 PM
#50
13 May 2020, 17:28 PM
#51
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1


yes we all know that m4c is super strong


I am not included in the "we all".
13 May 2020, 18:08 PM
#52
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



I am not included in the "we all".


You also haven't been included with a sarcasm detector it seems.
13 May 2020, 18:14 PM
#53
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 May 2020, 18:08 PMEsxile


You also haven't been included with a sarcasm detector it seems.


It's very hard to say what's supposed to be sarcasm and what isn't considering the weird stuff people on coh2.org write every day.
13 May 2020, 19:04 PM
#54
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

IMO biggest change would be to fix their vet and maybe give them smoke grenades. Obviously separating them from the M5 and making them 2 CP would also make it easier for them to be fit into build orders.


At the very least give them a better vet 1 ability. They deserve something a little better than tripwire flares
13 May 2020, 19:05 PM
#55
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



At the very least give them a better vet 1 ability. They deserve something a little better than tripwire flares


Tripwire flares are amazing and do not make them oppressive. They should not be changed with something bullshit like tactical assault.
13 May 2020, 19:10 PM
#56
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1



Tripwire flares are amazing and do not make them oppressive. They should not be changed with something bullshit like tactical assault.


They're already not even close to being oppressive, you have to spend fuel for each squad you want to call-in

No one said flares are bad and no one said anything about tac assault. A sprint or smoke grenade would be nice. Something that actually goes with that squad
13 May 2020, 20:43 PM
#57
avatar of Applejack

Posts: 359



Well, I don’t really like DShK. DShK has too small a cone of fire, although it has a good suppression. I would prefer Maxim more for the defense of the position due to the fact that it is more difficult to flank. Although Maxim is not the best machine gun. So yes, in this commander, only M4C is useful to me.


Use a the DShK inside a building or trench. It becomes a god tier weapon.
13 May 2020, 23:23 PM
#58
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

The m4c offers an alternative to the boring regular. Maybe I don't want to spit out fucking su85s every game. Maybe I want a little variety. It's a more AT alternative to the t34 that let's you mix and match mediums if that's what you want to do. Nobody is stopping you from building an su85 just because the Sherman is there. Christ all mighty. Not every doctrinal option has to be clearly better than everything in the stock lineup. It's OK for things to just be different. It's a fucking game. Play it to have fun instead of trying to min/max your fucking build order.
13 May 2020, 23:26 PM
#59
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



They're already not even close to being oppressive, you have to spend fuel for each squad you want to call-in

No one said flares are bad and no one said anything about tac assault. A sprint or smoke grenade would be nice. Something that actually goes with that squad

Due to the semi exclusive nature of the ass guards (HT fuel cost) I'd like to see them as LITE officer style units. Maybe vet 1 gives activated Aura like ost arty officer has? Something that if you lose the squad it makes you consider calling in another and something that makes the fuel cost call in possibly more than just a one time shock cavalry doc slot.
13 May 2020, 23:50 PM
#60
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

Before anything. Isnt there like 3 types of guards in game? Para-guards Ass-Guards and normal Guards? I find it too much variation to keep all of them "balanced" but not being OP or powercreep and be viable in the meta game, given the fact that each of the 3 variations have a particularly different design from each other.

Maybe someone more experienced than me could help me filing the gaps between units designs.

Para guards: Good AI and insertion unit (IMHO they are a para clone with the strafe ability)
Ass guards: (Like cav riflemen but without snare nor good individual abilities)
Normal Guards: Strong at long range with defensive profile and early AT option.

Now, @OP
Ass guards should keep the M5+Unit bundle because that makes them a instant reaction unit. I agree that they are sort of worthless currently but i simply understand that after the initial rush the M5 is perfectly usable. It is without a doubt a stronger clown car tool. The problem is that it comes when snares are more than available and ATGs will instagib the M5 on a badly driven flank.

I would like to identify the real prupose of the bundle and discuss how impactful would be to buff/tweak it in order to success in the current game scenario. Since its a very outdated unit it is awkward or powercreepless.

It could be a strong tool to deal with elite infantry, specially long range ones like obers, AT-less pgrens, snipers (OFC), FSJ and even pios. It could also be a worthy tool against ATGs.

I would like to see a FU cost reduction, because that will allow some kamizake-sort assaults. Maybe add a special feature that ass guards dont lose models when the vehicle it is inside blows up.
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

510 users are online: 510 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49063
Welcome our newest member, jennifermary
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM