why not nerf pathfinder？

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 08:57 AMVipper

And that bring as back to the original question. In your opinion do Pathfinder have a low XP value?

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 09:15 AMSerrith

For their cost, yes. For their strength, no. 290mp for a 4 man unit that has non complementary weapon stats (sniper+close range carbine), a full 1.0 RA value and relatively poor offensive vet- oh and expensive reinforce, 33mp per model wasn't it?
If you double BAR them, they do get stronger but its still non complementary weapons as BAR is at its best in close-mid range.

Not saying they are worse than pios but pios only cost 200mp.


Pathfinders are primarily taken for recon, not combat though they do have to chip in. If we have to increase the vet requirements for them, I'd also suggest giving them a sizeable reduction in RA but removing a weapon slot. This means they will be more durable when they hit the field, but wont scale as well through combat capability.

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 09:45 AMVipper

Glad to see that we agree about the XP value. Their DPS is enough to make vet very fast (more so for IR Pathfinders).

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 14:47 PMSerrith

We do not agree. I feel their xp is fine given their current stock combat capability to cost ratio.

For a dedicated combat infantry squad of ~290mp like penals, the exp value would be way too low. But for the combat capability of the pathfinders given their cost, I'm ok with it.

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 15:10 PMVipper

Then I have to point out:
ΧP value of unit was original tied to the cost of unit and not its DPS

In game the Pathfinder gain veterancy way faster the pioneer and Penals and get access to powerful vet bonuses. Probably the unit gain veterancy faster than any other unit.

I also have to point out that apart from the combat performance both Pathfinders also have bring utility.

And what is your opinion about I&R Pathfinder that come with 3 paras carbine and one scoped. Because they have the same XP value?

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 18:40 PMSerrith

How the game was balanced 5 years ago is very different from how it is today. Originally reinforce cost was tied directly to the purchase cost of the unit. That model was dropped for the better. I see no reason why veterency needs to be tied only to cost. You can point out this outdated system all you like though, thats your right.


Not that its saying much but pathfinders do have better vet than pioneers and their vet is "powerful" in terms of utility but weak in terms of combat stats. It certainly doesn't help that their stock capabilities aren't that good given their cost. Pioneers aren't an easy unit to vet given their specific weapon characteristics, and penals just have high(though justified) vet requirements. I dont think there's a problem with them vetting faster than these two examples.


I&R pathfinders are a superior unit objectively to standard pathfinders. Their cost and vet could both be slightly increased.
Standard Pathfinder vet doesn't really need to be touched.

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 15:10 PMVipper

Then I have to point out:
ΧP value of unit was original tied to the cost of unit and not its DPS

In game the Pathfinder gain veterancy way faster the pioneer and Penals and get access to powerful vet bonuses. Probably the unit gain veterancy faster than any other unit.

I also have to point out that apart from the combat performance both Pathfinders also have bring utility.

And what is your opinion about I&R Pathfinder that come with 3 paras carbine and one scoped. Because they have the same XP value?

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 20:41 PMKatitof

Show Spoiler

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 20:41 PMKatitof

That is old design and it doesn't apply for 6 years now, since this is when first exceptions started appearing. It applied exclusively to vanila eastern front.
All of the cost changes without vet req changes over the years also prove that this is not only a weak argument, its laughable one.


Powerful vet bonuses to weak base stats result in ok vetted stats, not op unit.


Neither extra sight nor anti bunker ability helps win engagements.


What's wrong with them now?
The same reasoning applies here.
They are not JLI, they are not independent infantry capable of fighting and beating opposing mainlines.

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 20:49 PMVipper

If you want to take part in this debate just start by responding to simple question, in your opinion do Pathfinder and I&R Pathfinder gain veterancy at the same rate as other units or faster/slower?

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 20:55 PMKatitof

In my opinion they get veterancy as fast as the utility unit with bad DPS in contrast to mainline it supports should.

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 09:15 AMSerrith

For their cost, yes. For their strength, no. 290mp for a 4 man unit that has non complementary weapon stats (sniper+close range carbine), a full 1.0 RA value and relatively poor offensive vet- oh and expensive reinforce, 33mp per model wasn't it?
If you double BAR them, they do get stronger but its still non complementary weapons as BAR is at its best in close-mid range.

Not saying they are worse than pios but pios only cost 200mp.


Pathfinders are primarily taken for recon, not combat though they do have to chip in. If we have to increase the vet requirements for them, I'd also suggest giving them a sizeable reduction in RA but removing a weapon slot. This means they will be more durable when they hit the field, but wont scale as well through combat capability.

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 21:19 PMVipper

Pls be specific and name some of the units that in your opinion gain veterancy as fast regardless of role during the progress of the game.

Jump back to quoted post10 Dec 2020, 12:17 PMKatitof

Its the opposite.

Jump back to quoted post10 Dec 2020, 12:17 PMKatitof

They have greatly inflated cost, you pay for them much more then they are worth.
This is why no one ever gets them anymore after a meme dual bar period ended.