Royal engineer Recovery Squad

The WC51 analogy is and cav rifles is simply not relevant. Actually the reason why Cav rifles are CP 1 and not CP 0 like ASIS is because the combo of minute 0 WC51 and Cav riflemen would be broken.

You can see it too by the link I provided so there is no "maybe" here ...

Once more I have not claimed that this tactic is very common so I have no idea why some people are fixating on how often it is being used.

Have you see the UC ASIS combo? if you have why do you bring up irrelevant thing like M3A3 and WC51

I pointed it out because you wrote this:

...transporting troops works much better in larger modes and maps where it enables to concentrate units faster.

to claim that this topic is more relevant to team games.
I replied that I barely see transports for transporting troops in 2v2 and 3v3, whereas I remember it being used extensively in 1v1 tourneys, as well as other points I made.
The UC - as a transporter - is still not "much better in larger modes". Not to my knowledge, not to my experience. On some huge maps like general mud, I could imagine a niche but that's a niche function and micro intensive.

How often it is being used is important. If it were OP, you'd see it regularly. So, if the tactic is not OP, this leaves the question if there is any other larger design issue with it.
The recovery sappers are coming a bit earlier to the frontline than originally intended. Minor point, but no real issue.

Point was that distance is a factor contrary to your claim. Do we agree that distance is factor?

If you already focus on single words and exact phrasing, then don't make up that I claimed that "distance was not a factor".
Anyway, I have no idea what you define as a "factor".
A factor for synergy and getting more out of your Sappers? Yes. A factor for making this strat OP? Nope, because it is not.
It still does not show how this combo is problematic because they can push you off the map easily, which was the whole reason you started this thread.
It enables UKF an aggressive start, definitely. Still, that is not a problem at all.

I have 2.594 games as UKF.

proof or gtfo

I pointed it out because you wrote this:

to claim that this topic is more relevant to team games.
I replied that I barely see transports for transporting troops in 2v2 and 3v3, whereas I remember it being used extensively in 1v1 tourneys, as well as other points I made.
The UC - as a transporter - is still not "much better in larger modes". Not to my knowledge, not to my experience. On some huge maps like general mud, I could imagine a niche but that's a niche function and micro intensive.

Other transporter are not really relevant as I hope already pointed out. Once more "Have you see the UC ASIS combo?" in mode larger than 1vs1?

How often it is being used is important. If it were OP, you'd see it regularly. So, if the tactic is not OP, this leaves the question if there is any other larger design issue with it.
The recovery sappers are coming a bit earlier to the frontline than originally intended. Minor point, but no real issue.

Since neither you nor I have access to how often is being used it is not important.

And I have already point out in other threads that the correlation of something being op and something being used often is no not simple as that.

If you already focus on single words and exact phrasing, then don't make up that I claimed that "distance was not a factor".
Anyway, I have no idea what you define as a "factor".
A factor for synergy and getting more out of your Sappers? Yes. A factor for making this strat OP? Nope, because it is not.
It still does not show how this combo is problematic because they can push you off the map easily, which was the whole reason you started this thread.
It enables UKF an aggressive start, definitely. Still, that is not a problem at all.

How fast one can get hit troops on fuel or other important point for the initial fight is a an important factor in game. The importance increases with the distance one has to travel.

proof or gtfo

If you want something from you have to ask in polite manner and if you do not have anything constructive to bring to this thread I would suggest that you get out of this thread.

if this is your only argument (pointing out my ridicule at you), then this thread should be closed

Do you agree that RoRe are one of the most durable smg units for its time frame?

If you want something from you have to ask in polite manner and if you do not have anything constructive to bring to this thread I would suggest that you get out of this thread.

Give me proof that you have so many games as UKF or everything you say is null and void.

happy?

Do you agree that RoRe are one of the most durable smg units for its time frame?

dumb retard trying to gaslight people like always

they are not overpowered for their cost and work like every OTHER minute 0 SMG squad

Do you agree that RoRe are one of the most durable smg units for its time frame?

nop

Give me proof that you have so many games as UKF or everything you say is null and void.

happy?

I am not really interested in what you think.

And you simply do not get to be rude and then to demand things.

In the end of the day it is pretty easy to find that information yourself if you are really interested.

Other transporter are not really relevant as I hope already pointed out. Once more "Have you see the UC ASIS combo?" in mode larger than 1vs1?

No, I have not seen that combo regularly, nor in the recent weeks. Why?

Since neither you nor I have access to how often is being used it is not important.

And I have already point out in other threads that the correlation of something being op and something being used often is no not simple as that.

The point is that if something seems to be barely used at all, then you need to make a really good case why it is OP. Strong units get used more frequently than weak ones, that's pretty much a fact. We're on page 4 and you have no strong arguments why this combo were so problematic.

How fast one can get hit troops on fuel or other important point for the initial fight is a an important factor in game.

No one invests 500 MP for the first 20 seconds of the game if it also means not capping any other point at all. This combo needs to continuously pay off to be viable. As I pointed out, both Axis factions have the necessary counters. The game is not decided by the first engagement.

The importance increases with the distance one has to travel.

Which is why transports and lighter vehicles in general are more important in smaller modes, since a single player covers a larger area of the map.

nop

Lets see what stat have to say then:

EFH Pioneers = 4*80/1 = 320
EFH Assault grenadier = 5*80/0.95 = 421
EFP Assault IS = 5*80/0.97 = 412
EFP Ro.Eng = 4*80/0.9 = 355
EFP assault Engineers = 5*80/0.9 = 444
EFP RoRE = 5*80/0.9 = 444

dumb retard trying to gaslight people like always[/size]

they are not overpowered for their cost and work like every OTHER minute 0 SMG squad

So asking you if you agree that RoRe are one of the most durable smg units for its time frame is trying to gaslight you. It seem that you do not really know what the term means.

Lets see what stat have to say then:

EFH Pioneers = 4*80/1 = 320
EFH Assault grenadier = 5*80/0.95 = 421
EFP Assault IS = 5*80/0.97 = 412
EFP Ro.Eng = 4*80/0.9 = 355
EFP assault Engineers = 5*80/0.9 = 444
EFP RoRE = 5*80/0.9 = 444


So asking you if you agree that RoRe are one of the most durable smg units for its time frame is trying to gaslight you. It seem that you do not really know what the term means.

You think I care about stats?

No, I have not seen that combo regularly, nor in the recent weeks. Why?



The point is that if something seems to be barely used at all, then you need to make a really good case why it is OP. Strong units get used more frequently than weak ones, that's pretty much a fact. We're on page 4 and you have no strong arguments why this combo were so problematic.


No one invests 500 MP for the first 20 seconds of the game if it also means not capping any other point at all. This combo needs to continuously pay off to be viable. As I pointed out, both Axis factions have the necessary counters. The game is not decided by the first engagement.

Caping the rest of the map is less important in large modes because there are more people caping, I pretty sure you are aware of that.

Securing the fuel early is very important and it can in some cases decide the game especially vs OKW.

Which is why transports and lighter vehicles in general are more important in smaller modes, since a single player covers a larger area of the map.

Transports are like the M3 are used to get wipes in 1vs1 and not in order to cap the map.

Thread in a nutshell:
- Unit X is OP.
- Do you use them ?
- No.
- Do you see pp use them ?
- No, or like two time.
- Then why ?
- I said they are OP, find proofs yourself )))))))

You forgot the last one:

- Provide proof that Phenomenon Z is happening, or else what you say is stupid.
- You are rude and you hurt my feelings. Thus, you do not deserve the proof (((((((((

*Claims axis unit is underpowered*

Vipper: You may have a little proof, as a treat.

If a 250 manpower unit could beat a 300 manpower unit in an equal fight it would not just be OP but broken.

By this logic Pioneers are overpowered because they can win the first engagement against Infantry Sections 1v1 if they can get close and get green cover. For a 200MP unit, I can't count how many times I have won an engagement because of Pioneers as Whermacht.

Since you are claiming that vanilla Gren/Volks will beat RoRe pls provide proof of it.

COH2 is a game about Combined Arms, Cover and Unit Positioning. Royal Engineer and UC are only 2 Units. It is highly unlikely that the player will make more than 1 UC (since it costs fuel unlike the Kubelwagon)

As Whermacht almost every Whermacht player makes an MG first then usually go into Grenadiers/Ostruppen. This is just to cover your MG-42.

Royal Engineers Start on cooldown, so even if they make UC as the first unit and then wait for Royal Engineers, that is a good 30 seconds + time it takes to arrive at whatever point they wish to capture.

If they try to dive your MG-42 by riding in the UC (it is not the soviet scout car, units cannot fire while inside of the UC), it will get fausted and taken out very quickly. If they try to take out your MG-42 you will have Pioneers and Grenadiers (maybe even 2 grenadiers at this point) to deal with the Royal Engineer Squad.

Best case scenario here for UKF, they force a retreat on your MG-42 which they themselves will also need to retreat and or may have lost UC for that. Also keep in mind doing this as a rush strat with UKF means they would also be sacrificing map control as UKF cannot capture the map as quickly due to lack of units. Huge gamble for UKF.


Against OKW, if the UC is driving to melee range to drop off Royal Engineers this would mean that the UC will do very little damage on approach. UC has a long range profile so it does less damage the closer it is to something. On top of that all vehicles have a moving accuracy penalty. Assuming you are in cover, the UC will probably lose half of its life on approach (though it can safely escape due to lack of Panzerfaust) at which case Sturmpioneers + Volks would make quick work of the Royal Engineer Squad. Best outcome here for UKF is forcing your Sturmpioneers to retreat. In which case you know what the opponent has and you can either go for T0 Raketen, or save up for Panzershreck on your Sturmpioneers. If you go for Panzerfusiliers you could avoid all that and just throw AT grenades at the UC in which it would be a waste of manpower and fuel on the British players part.


Royal Engineers used in an aggressive fashion like that isn't worthwhile in most cases. It would be better and safer to just have the UC take advantage of its long range profile to harass and bleed the enemy then having it retreat so your royal engineers can repair them. Kind of like how Sturmpioneers and Kubelwagon do it, literally the same thing except they don't require a doctrine to do it and do not give up any map control for it.

Since you are claiming that vanilla Gren/Volks will beat RoRe pls provide proof of it.

I laid out the typical scenarios on what would happen in a real game. Even in a Vipper vacuum world where it is 1 Grenadier vs 1 Royal Engineer, as the Royal Engineer Squad is running up close to the Grenadier(or even volks)
It will drop a model or 2 before getting in optimal range and would most likely end up in a tie forcing both units to retreat which is rather terrible when you consider that Royal Engineers are more expensive than Grenadiers and you chose a doctrine for that.

Especially when 2-3 minutes into the game Grenadiers will start getting upgrades with the MG42 (LMG) and completely mop the floor with them. Not to mention that both Whermacht and OKW can field more units than UKF means that for a majority of the game UKF is on the defensive end. The one moment where you are mildly inconvenienced it is automatically deemed OP.

Imagine not being able to deal with 5 dudes with stens lmao

Caping the rest of the map is less important in large modes because there are more people caping, I pretty sure you are aware of that.

And the same goes for the enemy team.
Every time an ally has to cap a point for you because you as UKF push the UC+Sapper combo, there will be a gap in his front line where he is down one squad to his opponent. There is definitely an advantage in good coordination, but again: prove how this is game breaking, how Axis have a hard time to recover from that.

Securing the fuel early is very important and it can in some cases decide the game especially vs OKW.

Transports are like the M3 are used to get wipes in 1vs1 and not in order to cap the map.

Your whole argumentation revolves around
1. aggressive sapper drops - a quick glance over the available counters will tell you that this is not a large issue
2. UKF being able to have more units on the field for about 30 seconds and therefore being able to take a fuel point first.
Arriving 10-20 seconds earlier to a any point does not decide the game. If it does, there is a huge skill gap.
If that were the case, Ostheer should win way more often, since pios+MG beat almost any combo of pio+mainline with somewhat competent players. Especially in larger modes where flanking is hard. OKW can generate a similar combo stock by building Volks+Kubel. But they don't. They might lock down the sector first, but the game is too much back and forth and will always be in even games.

All this while there is so much speaking against it being OP. There is no point to make here, you make claims and don't back them up with tests, and the reasoning provided is fairly weak.
I even just tested it: On Whiteball, rushing fuel, OKW's SP arrives there at 1:05, the first Volk about 20 seconds later, the Kubel arrives at 1:35.
Trying the same thing with the allegedly problematic UKF strat, first IS arrives 1:05 (no surprise), while the Sapper+UC combo arrives at 1:32.
Now, Whiteball is not the largest map available, but it shows the scale of the "problem": You're arriving maybe 10 seconds later than the UKF player. You've not shown in any way how this is problematic. If it were, games would be decided by the first engagement only.