Pioneers vs Rear Echelon

It's best to ignore that wehraboo. Just waiting for ullu to come and say that spios lose to echelon.

It's best to ignore that wehraboo. Just waiting for ullu to come and say that spios lose to echelon.

Elephant loses to M-42 atg

RE Spam should not be viable. Anyone spamming rear echelons needs to lose. If they do win, it's the opponents fault. You can go double spios, double pios, double CEs and 3x royal engies in case of Anvil... but REs should never be spammed. Unless they were turned into little Obers, you don't spam echelons, not now, not never.

That why RE suck ass. RE is the only engineer unit that spam like another and it is unfair.

honestly, Vet 3 RE is not worth for 200 mp, poor performance, lack of tools and need to spend more than every engineer to be useful.
RE should be adjust to fullfil his price tag, reinfor cost anyway. We are in 2022 now, not 2016.

On paper, because they have valley fire. Which is kinda over-nerfed, but as a niche rifle supporting ability some times can work also they have nice smoke ability.

Also kinda because at vet 3 they are 5 men squad and vet2 provides some combat bonuses.

In practice its just the way they are supposed to be cost vise, because some of the commanders give them strong upgrades (riflenades\flames) on top of the fact that they can have zooks (which will bring them to vet 3 really fast making them 5 men AT squad).

Other then that, imo cost arent reflecting their performance, rather cost is based on what can be done with REs and what upgrades they can have.

lol. Volley fire ? Useless ability that nerfed to the ground. And smoke ability was on riflemans so their smoke "ability" is not a pro. It is a must. Then strong upgrades for RE is not a good argument for that RE get rekted by pioneers and also combat engineers.

I also don't think RE are initially worth their 200 MP cost. They are probably the least useful unit in the early game having both bad DPS and little utility. Since USF has crew repairs, they are one of the very few units I do not rebuilt until I really need the sweeper.

I agree with the points that others made: Weapon racks (or better to say bazookas) make them decently efficient. The issue here is obviously that those weapons have to be priced to fit basically any unit of the whole USF faction. So making REs cheaper could result in bazooka/BAR spam tactics, which in turn could only be fixed by increasing the price of the weapon racks and/or weapons themselves. Which then again would affect Riflemen as well.

Since REs are not really needed for USF to work, sacrificing their early game usefulness is the easier (and smarter) choice.

I also don't think RE are initially worth their 200 MP cost. They are probably the least useful unit in the early game having both bad DPS and little utility. Since USF has crew repairs, they are one of the very few units I do not rebuilt until I really need the sweeper.

I agree with the points that others made: Weapon racks (or better to say bazookas) make them decently efficient. The issue here is obviously that those weapons have to be priced to fit basically any unit of the whole USF faction. So making REs cheaper could result in bazooka/BAR spam tactics, which in turn could only be fixed by increasing the price of the weapon racks and/or weapons themselves. Which then again would affect Riflemen as well.

Since REs are not really needed for USF to work, sacrificing their early game usefulness is the easier (and smarter) choice.

There is a flaw in "rack" system and I had pointed out years ago (in 2017) when it could had easily been fixed:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/60230/balancing-dropable-weapons

But there are also solution:
1) units having a modifier for slot weapons
2) units picking different version of weapons

I believe that increasing their vision should be enough to make them viable again. Just like what happened with a 3 man Major with a very bad RA. Increasing their vision would work in the favor of USF not requiring vision to spot TWs and be over dependent on Pathfinders or M20 Utility or the weak major. That's about it.
On offensive stats I believe they still lose to Vet 5 volks if they are vet 3 5 man 2xBar squad. Volks still pretty much win.

I believe that increasing their vision should be enough to make them viable again. Just like what happened with a 3 man Major with a very bad RA. Increasing their vision would work in the favor of USF not requiring vision to spot TWs and be over dependent on Pathfinders or M20 Utility or the weak major. That's about it.
On offensive stats I believe they still lose to Vet 5 volks if they are vet 3 5 man 2xBar squad. Volks still pretty much win.

RE's with superior vision and smoke grenades seems like a touch too much, perhaps lose the smoke grenade if so.

personally find RE's to be OK-ish, could reduce some of the mid-game to late-game impact (weapon racks and decent veterancy bonuses) in favour for more early game impact, like more dmg and cheaper price

There is a flaw in "rack" system and I had pointed out years ago (in 2017) when it could had easily been fixed:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/60230/balancing-dropable-weapons

But there are also solution:
1) units having a modifier for slot weapons
2) units picking different version of weapons

To be honest I hope that CoH3 will feature some generalized "weapon skill" stat per squad that provides a modifier for weapon DPS based. Technically, this could already exist by giving each squad a separate accuracy modifier and somehow exists with different vet bonuses, but basically every unit starts out at a modifier of "1" and only vet creates differences. This is basically what you suggested back then if I understand it correctly, at least broadly categorizing units into three classes.
The current system makes base Conscripts or builder units just as effective with a picked up weapon as alleged elite troops with proper training.

The current solution was to make most weapons non-droppable and force every unit to use mostly unique weapons, so that the weapon accuracy can be tuned instead of the squad's "weapon skill".
Changing the weapon to one with different stats on pick up would solve the issue, but at the cost of high maintenance.

To circle back to topic:
I am fine with CoH2's current approach. It's not elegant, it's not optimal. But at least regarding rear echelons, it is okay. The faction works without them being potent early on. USF's issues are elsewhere, so even if we'd get another patch, I'd probably not touch echelons.

To be honest I hope that CoH3 will feature some generalized "weapon skill" stat per squad that provides a modifier for weapon DPS based. Technically, this could already exist by giving each squad a separate accuracy modifier and somehow exists with different vet bonuses, but basically every unit starts out at a modifier of "1" and only vet creates differences. This is basically what you suggested back then if I understand it correctly, at least broadly categorizing units into three classes.
The current system makes base Conscripts or builder units just as effective with a picked up weapon as alleged elite troops with proper training.

The current solution was to make most weapons non-droppable and force every unit to use mostly unique weapons, so that the weapon accuracy can be tuned instead of the squad's "weapon skill".
Changing the weapon to one with different stats on pick up would solve the issue, but at the cost of high maintenance.

The suggestion at the time was about universal modifiers according to category.

Since Relic/mod team has opted for more complicates solution like slot weapon modifiers (osttrupen)/different weapon (Ober/commandos/paras/Rangers) I included those solution also.

Main point is that slot weapon should be beneficial to the units according to their status.

To circle back to topic:
I am fine with CoH2's current approach. It's not elegant, it's not optimal. But at least regarding rear echelons, it is okay. The faction works without them being potent early on. USF's issues are elsewhere, so even if we'd get another patch, I'd probably not touch echelons.

OP seem to have trouble dealing with hmg and that has probably more to do with refusal to build mortars than the performance of RE.

Cost of RE is really irrelevant in what he describes as the issue since the unit comes for free.

OP seem to have trouble dealing with hmg and that has probably more to do with refusal to build mortars than the performance of RE.

Cost of RE is really irrelevant in what he describes as the issue since the unit comes for free.

Rear Echelons cost 200 MP, they are not "free".
His OP was about a comparison with pioneers. If that makes sense is another question, but Echelons are without a doubt the worst early game unit. Vanilla they are similar to Combat Engineers, but those at least get better utility, a flame thrower and are both cheaper in purchase and reinforcement.

Rear Echelons cost 200 MP, they are not "free".
His OP was about a comparison with pioneers. If that makes sense is another question, but Echelons are without a doubt the worst early game unit. Vanilla they are similar to Combat Engineers, but those at least get better utility, a flame thrower and are both cheaper in purchase and reinforcement.

His complain is about the first engagement not about building extra RE so even if a RE cost 100 manpower the first engagement results wouldn't change. Talking about cost in that situation does not really make sense.

As for pioneers they are not useful in combat past minute 1 unless under very specific conditions.

His complain is about the first engagement not about building extra RE so even if a RE cost 100 manpower the first engagement results wouldn't change. Talking about cost in that situation does not really make sense.

As for pioneers they are not useful in combat past minute 1 unless under very specific conditions.

Purely for the first engagements I agree with you.

The last point though is quite a hyperbole. Vanilla pioneers can contribute until enemy mainlines get either upgrades or vet2, which makes them useful in combat for at least the first 5-10 minutes depending on the matchup. Especially in smaller modes where they are not focused out as much but can go more often into 1v1 situations.

Purely for the first engagements I agree with you.

The last point though is quite a hyperbole. Vanilla pioneers can contribute until enemy mainlines get either upgrades or vet2, which makes them useful in combat for at least the first 5-10 minutes depending on the matchup. Especially in smaller modes where they are not focused out as much but can go more often into 1v1 situations.

Pioneer are SMG troops that can not attack past initial fighting and their best combat use is defending HMG from flanks, while having to fulfill a number of other roles including building base building.

From my experience it is rather rare to see a vet 3 pioneer.

Pioneer are SMG troops that can not attack past initial fighting and their best combat use is defending HMG from flanks, while having to fulfill a number of other roles including building base building.

From my experience it is rather rare to see a vet 3 pioneer.

Pioneers can decently vet up if they have a flame thrower, however usually only the ones that have been built early.

But my point was not about about pioneer veterancy. My point is that pioneers compare decently against enemy units at the start of the game. This dynamic does not change until the enemy units either get upgrades or combat bonusses from veterancy. And since vet1 is usually reserved for utility, vet2 is the first point at which the actual combat performance of pioneer vs XYZ is changed and pioneers become less effective.
Squads do not reach vet2 nor weapon upgrades within 2 minutes, that's why I said your point that they are "not useful in combat past minute 1" is an exaggeration. Pioneers are usable in combat for the first 5-10 minutes depending on various factors. Only afterwards they fall off.

Pioneers can decently vet up if they have a flame thrower, however usually only the ones that have been built early.

But my point was not about about pioneer veterancy. My point is that pioneers compare decently against enemy units at the start of the game. This dynamic does not change until the enemy units either get upgrades or combat bonusses from veterancy. And since vet1 is usually reserved for utility, vet2 is the first point at which the actual combat performance of pioneer vs XYZ is changed and pioneers become less effective.
Squads do not reach vet2 nor weapon upgrades within 2 minutes, that's why I said your point that they are "not useful in combat past minute 1" is an exaggeration. Pioneers are usable in combat for the first 5-10 minutes depending on various factors. Only afterwards they fall off.

Since they are an smgs unit that can not really charge vs most units their main fighting role is to defend vs flanks or ambush, thus as I have posted they are combat wise useful only in specific situations.

Rifle engineer units like CE and CE can contribute mediocre even from longer ranges.

The fishing capabilities of Pioneers are exaggerated by OP.

Since they are an smgs unit that can not really charge vs most units their main fighting role is to defend vs flanks or ambush, thus as I have posted they are combat wise useful only in specific situations.

Rifle engineer units like CE and CE can contribute mediocre even from longer ranges.

The fishing capabilities of Pioneers are exaggerated by OP.

That's not really true though.
Yes, don't charge them from max range across an open field and expect them to win. But literally all maps allow for closer range combat and have plenty of areas where you can ambush or simply manage to charge in from lower range. These are not very specific circumstances, they just work how all SMG troops work.

That's not really true though.
Yes, don't charge them from max range across an open field and expect them to win. But literally all maps allow for closer range combat and have plenty of areas where you can ambush or simply manage to charge in from lower range. These are not very specific circumstances, they just work how all SMG troops work.

Other smg troops have a number of perks like sprint/smoke/grenades/better defensive properties/more entities/far better DPS/camo.

Pioneer are probably the worse SMG troops when it comes to combat (as they should given they cost/role/weapon).

Pioneer are not that good in fighting as suggested by OP and that can be seen by the fact that usually end the game at lower vet levels.

Other smg troops have a number of perks like sprint/smoke/grenades/better defensive properties/more entities/far better DPS/camo.

Pioneer are probably the worse SMG troops when it comes to combat (as they should given they cost/role/weapon).

Pioneer are not that good in fighting as suggested by OP and that can be seen by the fact that usually end the game at lower vet levels.

Yes, and no other squad is as cheap.
No one said they compare to "actual" SMG assault squads that for the most part also come much, much later in the game and cost 50% more MP. But pioneers starting at mid range beat Allied main lines in the early game, and they do that until min 5-10 as I described earlier. Or do you seriously want to debate that and stick with your 1 minute?