Snipers vs buildings

Typical.

"I have nothing to counter with on-topic so I try to divert to ad hominem".

Try again.

And you not having directed your earlier post to me directly though it was, impliedly, addressed to me, is flat out cowardly, pathetic and "bitchy" behavior.

Is that better? I don't really see the need to get so defensive when you don't have much grounding in the actual game to fall back on in any argument. You're not good at the game by your own admission/deflection, and you somehow think you can make sweeping opinions that in reality make absolutely 0 sense. Buildings should be weaker? Give me a break.

Like I said before, there is absolutely 0 reason to make an ostheer sniper. I haven't seen one in game or in a replay. I haven't built one except to troll low level players (probably such as yourself) or to get practice micro'ing a fragile unit. Maybe you're using them to great effect in your games? I wouldn't know, never seen one.

Building cover is the same for every unit firing at every unit in a building regardless of faction.

You fucking fail at logic. Nice first post from you.
Now, fuck off with your ad hominem.

Hey man, I did not offend u!

I mean - u dont know how hard kill MG in the hous with sniper...

TheDave: Wtf are you talking about. Your post is like a knotted bowl of soft spaghetti. Has no head or tail. Half ad-hominem, half irrelevancy. I can't even tell if you are agreeing, or disagreeing with me from it.

Offtopic @ The Dave - look harder - there are good replays of German sniper usage - two recent ones at gr.org for example with VindicareX and Symbiosis. Probably more but those two were really good.

Ya, there's one game with the one guy who makes them. And Sym's sniper micro is on another level than most. TBH the sniper, while it works well for him, is pretty unnecessary in the big picture of the game right now. For 99% of the community it is a useless unit.

TheDave: Wtf are you talking about. Your post is like a knotted bowl of soft spaghetti. Has no head or tail. Half ad-hominem, half irrelevancy. I can't even tell if you are agreeing, or disagreeing with me from it.

Really odd metaphors aside, did you just learn the word ad-hominem or was this some sort of vocabulary exercise from your school? (oh, right, that's...wait for it...ad-hominem)

To make the argument more clear for the more simple minded:

Snipers (in particular the fragile single person Ostheer) need some sort of buff that makes them a more useful/cost effective unit, something that would bring them more in-line with their soviet counterpart. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that every unit should be useful/effective at countering something. In VCoh the sniper worked to great effect at countering both enemy snipers and weapons teams and draining mp (even the one's "hiding" in buildings) and people not named "Symbiosis" employed them to great effect, although he certainly did as well. The current situation/camo mechanic sees snipers from both factions getting getting beaten by mg's in houses and, as in the case with the soviet sniper, at range...This doesn't make sense either historically or within the context of the game, in my opinion.

I learned the term "ad-hominem" about 20 years ago, and have been successfully applying it to individuals who practice it ever since.

Historically, Snipers shoot OUT of houses, not INTO them. Furthermore, historically, if you are being shot at by a fucking sniper, you get your ass asap into some real proper hardcover, such as a building for protection.

Furthermore, if the 100% accuracy was implemented, as you want, then any Sniper inside the building would also be insta-gibbed by a Sniper from outside of it (effectively making Ost one man even less effective in and vs buildings with snipers).

You are confusing things together Dave. Hence the spaghetti reference. You took MG, Sniper and a random building together, and smooshed them into something that remotely resembles a squirrel with elephantitis, and named it "Balance".

MGs are being adjusted. I said "infantry" needs a place to "hide" (which you took to ridiculous lengths of misconstruing, perhaps because English is not your first language?) from Snipers, since they are categorically unable to do anything else except autoretreat from them otherwise.

Really odd metaphors aside, did you just learn the word ad-hominem or was this some sort of vocabulary exercise from your school? (oh, right, that's...wait for it...ad-hominem)

To make the argument more clear for the more simple minded:

Snipers (in particular the fragile single person Ostheer) need some sort of buff that makes them a more useful/cost effective unit, something that would bring them more in-line with their soviet counterpart. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that every unit should be useful/effective at countering something. In VCoh the sniper worked to great effect at countering both enemy snipers and weapons teams and draining mp (even the one's "hiding" in buildings) and people not named "Symbiosis" employed them to great effect, although he certainly did as well. The current situation/camo mechanic sees snipers from both factions getting getting beaten by mg's in houses and, as in the case with the soviet sniper, at range...This doesn't make sense either historically or within the context of the game, in my opinion.

I don't know about you guys I still kill MG squads in houses. Albeit it takes a few minutes to kill every last one of them

You play only for the Germans, and therefore your comments are meaningless ...
Complete nonsense - when your sniper 3 minutes killing MG in the house!!!

What does his point have anything to do with which side he plays?
Not only does the sniper effectiveness against buildings work for both sides, but anybody with a bit of common sense and life experience would be able to see that snipers would not be as effective against targets inside
It sounds as if you think that sniper is the only unit that is able to get rid of garrisoned troops

Buildings exist in the game. They are the hardest cover in the game, and yes, that needs to reflect especially on Snipers, against how otherwise infantry has no recourse but autoretreat.

Infantry need somewhere to go when faced with Snipers, other than auto-retreating.

I agree that well protected and microed soviet snipers are really hard to deal with at the moment and that this should be addressed somehow, but I don't think that the answer should be stick units into buildings, because it favors static boring gameplay.

Small arms dmg is fine. 40% cover is not a problem.
Snipers have no business 100% hitting models in them.
They are a infantry counter already in the field, they dont need it vs buildings too.

At the moment, buildings just provide insane amount of protection. If you like to camp, this is a good thing, but I personally don't like campy gameplay. It also limits strategic choices (for example with soviets you simply cannot afford not to tech molotovs).
Again, I don't think that snipers should be necessarily a dedicated building counter, I just say that a unit (especially an mg) in a building shouldn't be able to deny a territory for as long as it does now.

@Pwee: I agree with everything you said. However I stress that I dont think Sniper should be a building counter beyind what it already is.

Even though it suffers a 40% accuracy vs buildings, it STILL one shots those models in buildings it does hit, which is a huge difference to other small arms that spray and pray at buildings with already low accuracy values and low dps per hit past the cover modifier.

People dont seem to grasp this essential difference. A sniper will still outright kill any model it manages to hit in a building. Therefore its use vs garrisoned units is already inherent, existing and built into its stats.

My perspective on buildings, is the following:

Flamers are the counter, par excellence, because they dont give a fuck about cover.
Snipers still one shot the models they hit, whereas other small arms do their usual small dmg per hit past the cover.
Ordnance is a bit more complicated. I think Mortars, ATGs and vehicle shells should hit the building itself much harder. Thereby forcing the garrisoned units out, on pain of death in a collapse. Needless to say, the documented randomness of RNades is a problem here. Never should it instacollapse a building. Molotovs however, I think should more predictably set the building on fire to the result that, over time, it SETS IT ON FIRE and causess erious dmg to the building itself, rather than the units inside, to the result that you have to gtfo sooner or later, or the building will fall and nuke your unit. After a Molotov, Sov should only have to wait outside for the Ost to flee the soon to collapse building, rather than expecting the Molotov itself to dmg the unit inside.

HOWEVER

There is one more discrepancy, that I think, if addressed correctly, will improve the meta of buildings immensly, and be congruent with cover design overall, and that some other insightful posters have suggested.

This is that everywhere else on the field of battle, cover is negated when you move in close.

Im not saying that standing at the window of a building that is garrisoned, should reduce their cover to 0, as it would on every other cover. I am saying that I strongly think the cover modifier of buildings should be reduced against close small arms to the tune of 20%.

This would mean that small arms applied to buildingsmat close range would be 50% more effective than they are now, while still maintaining the buildings meta importance, because the units inside are still firing OUT at 0% cover to outside units, due to the close range principle (as it is now. If you shoot into a building at point blanc, they get a cover modifier, you, on the outside, get none).

Do younunderstand what I mean?

This would, indirectly, simulate "assaulting" a building. By being close, you half the cover of the units inside, to 20%, but still receive no modifier yourself, meaning buildings retain a strategic importance, but if you can carry the attrition, you CAN force a unit out with small arms, at close range.

TLDR:Buildings.
-Snipers:
Snipers still oneshot models, when rolling past cover modifier, with advantage of superior range.
Small arms in comparison spray and pray with shots constantly negated vs cover, amd little dps when scoring hit.
Snipers are GOOD vs garrisons, as they are.
-RNade/Molotov:
RNade should not dmg the structure at all. Only the garrisoned unit. No more RNade collapses.
Molotovs should reliably set the fucking building on fire, causing massive structural dmg over time, as well as garrison dmg, thereby invariably forcing the unit out from either flame dmg over time, or threat of building collapse.
-Shells and Ordnance:
Mortars, ATGs and Vehicle shells should hit buildings much harder. Thereby countering the building itself primarily, rather than the garrison inside. Point being that by forcing a building collapse, you force the garrison out, or it is fking nuked by the collapse.
-Building Assault modifier:
Small arms infantry within close range (ie:the range that negates cover) reduxe the buildings cover modifier to 20%.
Meaning small arms are 50% more effective than now at dmging units inside, while maintaining the buildings nominal function since the garrison fires out at the infantry at the existing 0% modifier for close range.