Hey people,
I just came up with some thoughts about Airborne and the Pathfinders, I really like those units, they are interesting, but it seems to me like, especially Airborne comes 1 CP too late, most call-in infantry is available at 2CP (even Shocks),so should Airborne in my opinion, the upgrades could be locked behind the Tier teching too prevent them from becoming overly powerful too early.
Paths could be 0CP to spice up USF's early game a bit,this unit would provide USF with a decent long range unit, at a higher call-in and reinforce cost than rifles.
I would suggest this primarily to add some more variety to the predictable and monotonous USF early game, the CP should be lowered so USF can actually call these units in before they can't afford the MP and Pop cost anymore since most USF players are forced to go for 3 Rifles from the start to not get stomped.
What do you think about it ? Further suggestions welcome.
Airborne and Pathfinders lower CP ?
15 Mar 2016, 12:19 PM
#1
Posts: 40
15 Mar 2016, 12:21 PM
#2
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The issue is they do pretty much what rifles do while scaling worse.
There isn't really much of a reason to ever go for call-in inf, unless you want to have proper CQC squad as USF.
There isn't really much of a reason to ever go for call-in inf, unless you want to have proper CQC squad as USF.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
15 Mar 2016, 12:23 PM
#3
Posts: 40
The issue is they do pretty much what rifles do while scaling worse.
There isn't really much of a reason to ever go for call-in inf, unless you want to have proper CQC squad as USF.
I thought especially about open maps, Pathfinders would perform so much better than rifles against Grens and Volks, especially since Volks got their damaged buffed to 12.
15 Mar 2016, 13:49 PM
#4
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
I have a feeling like everything in this doctrine should come 1CP earlier.
15 Mar 2016, 14:05 PM
#5
Posts: 213
There use to be a point where pathfinders with bars were good for outranging and bursting down with lmg grens but since rifles got their RA buff its just not that viable anymore.
Airborne can still be great with their upgrades but again you are sacrificing extra manpower whilst locking yourself into a mediocre doctrine. The commander could use some CP reductions to make it better but overall 4 out 5 of the abilities cost MP which can create a MP sink especially as usf.
Imo the at gun and mg drop should cost less mp or only muni sort of like the brit supply drop.
Airborne can still be great with their upgrades but again you are sacrificing extra manpower whilst locking yourself into a mediocre doctrine. The commander could use some CP reductions to make it better but overall 4 out 5 of the abilities cost MP which can create a MP sink especially as usf.
Imo the at gun and mg drop should cost less mp or only muni sort of like the brit supply drop.
15 Mar 2016, 14:14 PM
#6
Posts: 1220
most important thing is thunderbolt this thing sux hard if we compare wermaht stukas
15 Mar 2016, 14:15 PM
#7
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
how about airdropped penals
15 Mar 2016, 14:16 PM
#8
Posts: 210
Reduce the cost of Pathfinders to 220. They cost the same as Jaeger light infantry recon squads, but perform horribly worse. They are weaker versions of Jaeger recon squads, therefore they should cost less.
Change the reinforce speed of Paratroopers to match Rangers. I have no idea why Paras take so long to reinforce compared to Rangers (or any other infantry for that matter). Both are elite units but Para's have around a 2-3 times slower reinforce speed delaying the time they can be redeployed back onto the field.
The P47 strafing ability needs it's accuracy increased and munitions cost decreased to 200. That or it needs to be able to strafe both tanks and infantry instead of just tanks. Compared to the Stuka close air support, it's just pathetic.
Change the reinforce speed of Paratroopers to match Rangers. I have no idea why Paras take so long to reinforce compared to Rangers (or any other infantry for that matter). Both are elite units but Para's have around a 2-3 times slower reinforce speed delaying the time they can be redeployed back onto the field.
The P47 strafing ability needs it's accuracy increased and munitions cost decreased to 200. That or it needs to be able to strafe both tanks and infantry instead of just tanks. Compared to the Stuka close air support, it's just pathetic.
15 Mar 2016, 14:19 PM
#9
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
The call-in weapons are too expensive.
The doctrine is extremely, extremely munitions hungry.
The doctrine is extremely, extremely munitions hungry.
15 Mar 2016, 15:01 PM
#10
Posts: 1063
Reduce the cost of Pathfinders to 220. They cost the same as Jaeger light infantry recon squads, but perform horribly worse. They are weaker versions of Jaeger recon squads, therefore they should cost less.
Not to mention Jaeger got a slew of nice ability: sprint, booby trap, infiltration grenade is all good and spawn from building, compared to them Pathfinders only got camo at vet 0, nothing else.
15 Mar 2016, 15:27 PM
#11
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
The call-in weapons are too expensive.
And how.
For real, the rest of the doctrine probably needs tweaking as well, but the unmanned team weapons are nearly unusable.
15 Mar 2016, 15:28 PM
#12
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
The call-in weapons are too expensive.
The doctrine is extremely, extremely munitions hungry.
... and manpower. Having 3 rifles, 1-2 paratrooper/s and a pathfinder makes you bleed like a pig and then there are the team weapons drops...
 | Playercard of RedT3rror | |||||||||||||||
|
15 Mar 2016, 15:39 PM
#13
Posts: 210
The call-in weapons are too expensive.
The doctrine is extremely, extremely munitions hungry.
Am I missing something? The para dropped MG is cheaper than building a stock one and the para dropped AT gun costs exactly the same (cheaper if you don't include the lt or captain). You just need to man them with RE's which isn't that expensive in the first place considering the fact that you can skip LT or Capt and also drop the weapons for teammates.
15 Mar 2016, 15:44 PM
#14
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Am I missing something? The para dropped MG is cheaper than building a stock one and the para dropped AT gun costs exactly the same (cheaper if you don't include the lt or captain). You just need to man them with RE's which isn't that expensive in the first place considering the fact that you can skip LT or Capt and also drop the weapons for teammates.
But reinforcing the RE squad + the last man to the weapon crew will cost you another 100 MP, so realistically, using it is going to cost you the initial price tag and at least another 100 MP.
15 Mar 2016, 15:47 PM
#15
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Am I missing something? The para dropped MG is cheaper than building a stock one and the para dropped AT gun costs exactly the same (cheaper if you don't include the lt or captain). You just need to man them with RE's which isn't that expensive in the first place considering the fact that you can skip LT or Capt and also drop the weapons for teammates.
I'm sure that 10 mp less is 100% worth reinforcing 4 RETs/Rifles.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
15 Mar 2016, 15:47 PM
#16
Posts: 930
airborne is my favorite commander. it pretty much deals with anything axis throw at you.
BUT. It's kinda hard to use. but LMG paras are monsters, and if you use them together with finders you can keep reinforcing on the field and auto heal makes them excellent mobile units.
what most people go wrong is making too much rifles, if you are getting paras+finders you need to use RETs as meatshields/cappers and let the paras do the shooting while keeping casualties to a minimum.
I am really not a fan of the thompsons since allied infantry dies too fast on close combat.
BUT. It's kinda hard to use. but LMG paras are monsters, and if you use them together with finders you can keep reinforcing on the field and auto heal makes them excellent mobile units.
what most people go wrong is making too much rifles, if you are getting paras+finders you need to use RETs as meatshields/cappers and let the paras do the shooting while keeping casualties to a minimum.
I am really not a fan of the thompsons since allied infantry dies too fast on close combat.
15 Mar 2016, 16:08 PM
#17
Posts: 210
I'm sure that 10 mp less is 100% worth reinforcing 4 RETs/Rifles.
Yeah... but you guys aren't considering the fact that the MG or AT you paradrop doesn't require any build time nor tech costs, can be fielded anywhere as long as you have vision and can be given to teammates.
Because if you include tech costs, you technically pay 480 MP and 50 gas just to get your initial MG. You pay 470 MP and 60 gas for the intial AT gun.
So cost wise, it is cheaper. The trade off is that they are unmanned so you have to recrew them but that's the entire point.
15 Mar 2016, 16:13 PM
#18
Posts: 930
Airborne requires lots of micro, that's why people don't like it.
unlike LMG rifle blob that are equal to the brainless axis blobs and require minimal micro.
unlike LMG rifle blob that are equal to the brainless axis blobs and require minimal micro.
15 Mar 2016, 16:20 PM
#19
Posts: 44
Am I missing something? The para dropped MG is cheaper than building a stock one and the para dropped AT gun costs exactly the same (cheaper if you don't include the lt or captain). You just need to man them with RE's which isn't that expensive in the first place considering the fact that you can skip LT or Capt and also drop the weapons for teammates.
This is a perfect example of theory vs reality. In theory it should cost less, provided you don't reinforce the rear echelon, you don't buy "unneccesary" riflemen for the earlier CPs, you don't lose any airborne and have to reinforce those, you don't have to reinforce any pathfinders, and god forbid you decide to grab an officer anyway because at the end of the day one AT gun isn't enough AT
15 Mar 2016, 16:30 PM
#20
Posts: 210
It's not in theory... it's just basic math.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
43 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
32 | ||
 |
|
|
30 | ||
 |
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
17 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.624225.735+2
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.919405.694+3
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236
Board Info
751 users are online:
751 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49152
Welcome our newest member, Cummings
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Cummings
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM