Proposal: CE/Pio changes for a better meta

While I don't agree with everything on the list, I do agree with the general direction you are going for.

BTW I have heard from a reliable source, that they are already testing out faster building sandbags in beta.

While I don't agree with everything on the list.

Specify, please. I cant adjust the list without being made aware of what might be problematic with it.
Glad you agree with its general impetus though, but I cant do much without more specific critique to either defend it or improve it.

BTW I have heard from a reliable source, that they are already testing out faster building sandbags in beta.

Im not surprised. But unless it involves moving it to CE,(without which it does not incentivise CEs) or making it directional, or superior to native green cover, I find that largely unhelpful.

The buildtime is obviously too long. But what is even more obvious, is that why bother with it when generally speaking the maps ahave plenty of nominal green cover, not to mention buildings, and that it is on Cons makes CE, as dedicated builders, even more redundant. Sandbags need superior cover to be worthwhile compared to existing cover, arguably directional to give them a rough equivalency with Bunkers and CE built to return CEs to the meta.

My goal is to shave 1 Con/Gren off the current baseline vanilla meta, into an additonal Pio/CE.

My original post is wordy and technical, but the TLDR version is:
-At cheaper cost and more survival, as offset by less DPS, they have a relevant capping and field construction purpose.
-Flamers make them combat capable, ESPECIALLY vs garrisons, as is the intended and obvious Relics design path as derived from the last building patch.
-Im against reducing the Explosion risk. It already was. In my proposal it remains as is to offset the combat potential of cheaper yet more survivable CE/Pios when set to Flamers. I can accept this kind of RNG in order to grant Builders a more combat role which otherwise they sre not specifically intended for.
-In any case, the primary detractant between building a Con/Gren or a Pio/CE, is twofold:
---Lack of AT. BIG thing. But, with1 additional CE/Pio, you have better potential for mining!
---Shitty AI. With increased survival and low cost, they can still be used for capping and soaking, but they wont kill anything in the process.
---With Flamer, that AI becomes actually significant, especially vs garrisons, which is good for meta.
Howver with the Explosion, it is high risk, mostly because its 60 Muni down the shitter.

So except for the 6man CE thing... You're suggesting that pios and engineers function in roles similar to as they did in vCoH? Better/functional mines, native tank traps, worthwhile sandbags, and with flamethrowers being reliable counters to cover rather than RNGathons, and you've have base units on both factions with more than enough utility and potential tasks to keep them ever busy affecting the outcome of the game.

Hey, with all of that you'd scarcely have to touch their squad sizes or entity stats. I mean, four man squads for either unit never seemed right to me, and maybe for nostalgia reasons I'd prefer to see both reduced in squad size. Smaller (and therefore cheaper squads) makes for more multitaksing rather than one large squad shift-queuing a defensive line. Not to mention that pios and engis already like to get instagibbed (mortars anyone?) when repairing, almost to the point where squad size scarcely matters.

This thread makes me glad knowing you never played vCoH and came from DOW Nullist.

Pretty good suggestions.

I would think would incentives 2×CE/Pio builds.

Can be used for capping, garrisonning and weak early AI support to Cons/Grens.
Also incentives more mineplay and sweeping.

There is a small risk of CE/Pio spam due to the much lower reinforce and purchase cost, but with their reduced AI they will invariably fail vs the 3 or so Cons/Grens everyone will build anyways, so its a tradeoff.

Also since they lack hard AI with no Nade option, Cons/Grens are superior in fights.
No Merge or Oorah either, which is quite a severe drawback for CE spam.

What makes it even more interesting, is though you get a cheaper start, you lack ATeffects, so more than 2 would still be risky vs earlier light vehicles. However, indirectly, they do have AT, with Mines.

Im not worried about flamer spam too much. At 60 Munis thats a fair tradeoff, especially with the Explosion risk, and thats less Mines placed too.

I think this indirectly also makes t2 Support weapons more desirable, in conjunction with 2xBuilder+3Cons/Grens, for a more balanced force composition.

great proposal. but obviously just because CE have 6 men, they shouldn't be able to build or repair faster than when they were 4 men.

Nullist I really like your ideas here. I would additionally suggest that by increasing the build time of Tier 1 and Conscripts both Soviet and Ostheer players would feel more inclined to build a second pioneer/engineer. However increasing the build time for conscripts could be risky so you may have to balance that out with the increasing the build time for grens as well.

Also I would suggest that demos for engineers should be something you must first upgrade at your HQ before using like in vcoh. Currently I think they are too powerful having lost full vetted squads to this ability.

I don't see too much of a problem with an upgrade for demo, so long as the charges are made cheaper. I do think it's incredibly powerful and I'm not sure I like it being used as a sure fire, squad wiping, manual mine. That said, making it an upgrade wouldn't solve its effectiveness, it would just be another minor gate to people who use them extensively, and something that would make others never use them. Perhaps the change instead should be that demo, once activated, instead lights a fuse that gives both an audible queue that sounds like a fuse, and gives an on screen timer like a grenade. It'd give sweepers some time to disarm it, or time for units to run away. But, it makes it still effective against bridges and buildings where it should be since it takes time to cross bridges or get out of buildings.

Haven't read any of the other changes, although mostly I think it's a lot of wishful thinking for a giant change like this, when the devs are barely able to keep up with smaller changes. And a lot of people have suggested other changes just as sweeping and get shot down for the same reasons.

I don't object to sweeping changes in the early game to Pioneers and Combat Engineers. But, let's fix the problems we have now, let the meta stabilize, before a giant change.

Then we also need to acknowledge that CoH2 is still a different game, and so many times I see the changes with the most +1s are really just trying to turn it into CoH1 again even if some of the rationalizing sounds good. Having played CoH1 for a long time, I don't think it's always a good idea to relive the past too much.

Id rather the discussion was focused on trying to shave one Con/Pio off the spam into another field viable builder, that is the main idea behind this proposals despite the smaller details.

All feedback welcome of course though, Id just like to try and keep that in mind for us as the central purpose.

-------------------

On the specific issue of Demo charge, Ive seen these all over streams atm.
Very effective indeed, but considering cost/buildtime, I find that largely ok.

If something has to be done, then how about changing Demo Charge so it requires LoS to activate.

Its a fairly hard indirect nerf, but one that I think helps moderate deliberate abuse of it a little, without reducing its dmg, cost or surprise. Just makes it hinge a little more on micro and planning, and takes some of the edge off it when compared to true "place and forget" mines which detonate without any active player input.

-------------------

If the fact Ost doesnt have them becomes a sticking point then I suggest for example:

Booby trap: 90 Muni. Pios can rig a building to collapse when ANY unit enters them.
Asymmetrically aligned vs Demo, in that it makes the building unusable for Ost too, and cant be placed just anywhere, only in buildings, whereas Demo can be placed anywhere.

Booby trap: 90 Muni. Pios can rig a building to collapse when ANY unit enters them.
Asymmetrically aligned vs Demo, in that it makes the building unusable for Ost too, and cant be placed just anywhere, only in buildings, whereas Demo can be placed anywhere.

Holy shit, yes please!!!! Best idea ever along with the directional sandbags.
But make sandbags to be placed as blocks and not a fcking wall. Also make it destructible by Medium and Heavy tanks

sandbags should also be destructible by halftracks otherwise it would also serve as a tank trap for light vehicles.

btw, nullist your suggestion doesn't help with gren conscript spam. soviet support weapons are still good and germans only have a poor mg, while the rest of their weapons are good.


soviet engineers are at a good spot because they have a decent ability which is their mines and demo charges. Both can easily wipe out an enemy squads and with two engineers can create a lot of problems to the ostheer player.

for the german pioneers however, german AI mines should be more effective but even if they are the lmg would still be the more cost effective choice which adds to the list of reasons why you should not go S-mines.

so there are reasons to go double engineers but not double pioneers