Shrecks In T2
27 Jun 2019, 12:40 PM
#1
Posts: 3260
This has been suggested so many times that I figured it'd be worth having a poll on it.
27 Jun 2019, 13:01 PM
#2
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
I wouldn't mind if they came with T1, the same way that panzerfausts for Ostruppen do, to be honest.
27 Jun 2019, 17:28 PM
#3
Posts: 960
Leave them as-is. Any other change means that T2 is required, which reduces interesting (and risky) build orders.
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
I often edit my posts several times after posting
27 Jun 2019, 17:52 PM
#4
Posts: 3260
Leave them as-is. Any other change means that T2 is required, which reduces interesting (and risky) build orders.
I don't agree that skipping T2 is risky now.
No more risky than building T2, anyway.
27 Jun 2019, 17:56 PM
#5
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
imo the problem is different. Pgs and Penal start with very good AI for their time frame AND can transition to AT making them a very good investment.
If they stay at their current time frame, I would suggest:
Lowering their AI and offering AI upgrades
Removing their AT upgrade and moving to a separate AT unit (which could use identical skin but different weapons)
If they stay at their current time frame, I would suggest:
Lowering their AI and offering AI upgrades
Removing their AT upgrade and moving to a separate AT unit (which could use identical skin but different weapons)
27 Jun 2019, 18:09 PM
#6
Posts: 960
I don't agree that skipping T2 is risky now.
No more risky than building T2, anyway.
If you skip T2, it means no ATG, no HT, and no 222. That means you're limited entirely to 100-muni, 34mp reinforce cost, infantry based AT until T3+. Any kind of long range vehicle based AI (AA-HT, Quad, etc.) has no counter, at all, until BP3 + T3 + 90f. Additionally, you lose your strongest garrison clearer AND mobile forward reinforce point (251+Flame) as well as your ability to chase LVs (222).
It's incredibly risky - people just aren't playing well against it, yet.
Lowering their AI and offering AI upgrades
Removing their AT upgrade and moving to a separate AT unit (which could use identical skin but different weapons)
Both of these kind of defeat the purpose of moving PGrens to BP1/T0; it was entirely to offer stronger AI squads earlier on. Forcing an AI upgrade would likely make them even worse than they were before.
Moving the AT to another squad also defeats the purpose, since that squad would likely be in T2, which means teching is again required, which means the move of AI-PGrens to T0 only 'rushes' them by 200mp/20f, which (iirc) works out to 30-45sec in most games.
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
I often edit my posts several times after posting
27 Jun 2019, 18:24 PM
#7
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
...
Both of these kind of defeat the purpose of moving PGrens to BP1/T0; it was entirely to offer stronger AI squads earlier on. Forcing an AI upgrade would likely make them even worse than they were before.
Moving the AT to another squad also defeats the purpose, since that squad would likely be in T2, which means teching is again required, which means the move of AI-PGrens to T0 only 'rushes' them by 200mp/20f, which (iirc) works out to 30-45sec in most games.
Not really.
PF are far better designed the Penal or current Pg (although they do not seem to be cost efficient).
Not really.
making unit very good and able to adapt as the game progress means that there is little reason to built anything else.
27 Jun 2019, 18:27 PM
#8
Posts: 960
Not really.
PF are far better designed the Penal or current Pg (although they do not seem to be cost efficient).
I don't disagree at all with this; but PFs are doctrine units, not mainline.
However, my point was, that PGrens were unused before this patch because they came too late to be good. Forcing an AI upgrade would mean that when they arrived, they would be (performance wise) worse than before, and require additional resources to become as good as they are now. This would entirely offset the resource/time saved by the current BP1/T0 setup.
Not really.
making unit very good and able to adapt as the game progress means that there is little reason to built anything else.
While I see your point, PGs AI doesn't scale nearly as well as other mainline infantry units like double-bar rifles or double-bren IS. If this is a concern, then basically all mainline infantry needs to be re-worked.
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
I often edit my posts several times after posting
27 Jun 2019, 22:21 PM
#9
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I don't disagree at all with this; but PFs are doctrine units, not mainline.
However, my point was, that PGrens were unused before this patch because they came too late to be good. Forcing an AI upgrade would mean that when they arrived, they would be (performance wise) worse than before, and require additional resources to become as good as they are now. This would entirely offset the resource/time saved by the current BP1/T0 setup.
While I see your point, PGs AI doesn't scale nearly as well as other mainline infantry units like double-bar rifles or double-bren IS. If this is a concern, then basically all mainline infantry needs to be re-worked.
Penal and PG would see a cost reduction if they started with inferior weapon and had to upgrade. Some of their cost would simply move from MP to MU.
If these change take place one could start lowering the effectiveness of double weapon upgrades. For istance one could lower the weapon price to 45 and the performance.
28 Jun 2019, 04:18 AM
#10
Posts: 3053
I don't disagree at all with this; but PFs are doctrine units, not mainline.
However, my point was, that PGrens were unused before this patch because they came too late to be good. Forcing an AI upgrade would mean that when they arrived, they would be (performance wise) worse than before, and require additional resources to become as good as they are now. This would entirely offset the resource/time saved by the current BP1/T0 setup.
While I see your point, PGs AI doesn't scale nearly as well as other mainline infantry units like double-bar rifles or double-bren IS. If this is a concern, then basically all mainline infantry needs to be re-worked.
While pfusies are doctrinal, they're definitely also mainline in every sense of the word if you give them g43s. They're reasonable to reinforce at 25mp, cheaper than most other mainlines except volks and cons actually, have a good squad size, have weapons that are essentially effective at all ranges, have a grenade, and have a snare, and they aren't prohibitively expensive in any way except having to pick a doctrine to use them. All but the very last could describe basically all other mainlines.
PG AI still scales fairly well, and scales at that rate for free unlike rifles and sections.
@OP I voted they should remain as is currently in live because I do feel that having only schrecks as AT is a pretty decent risk, and gets countered hard by good LV play (except if you're brits and not using lend lease rip). Not having access to paks can really suck sometimes and personally I'm pretty wary of skipping T2 because of that.
 | Playercard of LoopDloop | |||||||||||||||||||
|
28 Jun 2019, 14:46 PM
#11
Posts: 3260
@OP I voted they should remain as is currently in live because I do feel that having only schrecks as AT is a pretty decent risk, and gets countered hard by good LV play (except if you're brits and not using lend lease rip). Not having access to paks can really suck sometimes and personally I'm pretty wary of skipping T2 because of that.
See, here I completely disagree.
I think the Pak is easier to counter with light vehicles than a Shreck Squad.
Mobility is the whole point of infantry AT.
28 Jun 2019, 15:05 PM
#12
Posts: 808
See, here I completely disagree.
I think the Pak is easier to counter with light vehicles than a Shreck Squad.
Mobility is the whole point of infantry AT.
imo its purely situational, sometimes mobility is better and in some situations the PAk is the better option and i think that's a good thing allowing the ostheer player to choose and makes the builds less predictable.
28 Jun 2019, 17:19 PM
#13
Posts: 3260
imo its purely situational, sometimes mobility is better and in some situations the PAk is the better option and i think that's a good thing allowing the ostheer player to choose and makes the builds less predictable.
That choice is heavily undermined by the current state of affairs: the Pak requires 200 MP 20 FU of sidetech and the Panzergrenadiers don't.
28 Jun 2019, 17:35 PM
#14
Posts: 960
That choice is heavily undermined by the current state of affairs: the Pak requires 200 MP 20 FU of sidetech and the Panzergrenadiers don't.
The PAK also has a lot more range, higher RoF, higher damage, and can't really be suppressed.
If you see a fast PGren/Schreck squad, and no T2, just get long-range AI; the OST player will have no counter, or will be forced to tech. Additionally, Schreck squads have basically no AI, and are very squishy; cover your LVs with infantry.
Personally, I've been enjoying the T1/T2 skip a lot, simply because people don't know how to play against it. Rushing a T70 into my schrecks isn't going to work, but people keep doing it.
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
I often edit my posts several times after posting
28 Jun 2019, 17:41 PM
#15
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
The PAK also has a lot more range, higher RoF, higher damage, and can't really be suppressed.
And more importantly, a Pak 40 doesn't cost you 34-102 manpower to reinforce every 2-3 minutes. Both have downsides and the Allies have access to units to exploit either. People just need time to adjust their builds.
Not being able to get suppressed isn't necessarily a good thing by the way, because it means it will take full damage from HMGs and they have quite nasty DPS on non-suppressed targets.
28 Jun 2019, 17:41 PM
#16
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
If you see a fast PGren/Schreck squad, and no T2, just get long-range AI; the OST player will have no counter, or will be forced to tech.
By long range AI, you mean something like a sniper? Yeah how could OST ever counter something like that...
28 Jun 2019, 17:43 PM
#17
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
By long range AI, you mean something like a sniper? Yeah how could OST ever counter something like that...
I assume he means AA halftracks that can suppress Panzerschreck squads at long range rendering them useless and the rest of the army mostly defenseless once the Panzerschreck squad is forced to retreat. Without Paks or 222s Ostheer can't do anything against a well microd AA halftrack.
28 Jun 2019, 17:45 PM
#18
Posts: 495 | Subs: 1
That choice is heavily undermined by the current state of affairs: the Pak requires 200 MP 20 FU of sidetech and the Panzergrenadiers don't.
Exactly. The question isn’t “which one is better”, it’s “which one is better for the cost?”
PaK40 is what? 320mp plus tech cost of 200mp and 20 Fuel so that’s 520 and 20 fuel vs the 320 cost for a squad of PanzerGrenadiers plus the 100 munitions.
So in some instances it’s more efficient to just get PGrens with Panzershrecks and other times it’s better to go the traditional route and get a PaK40.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.” ― Ronald Reagan
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
28 Jun 2019, 17:58 PM
#19
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
I assume he means AA halftracks that can suppress Panzerschreck squads at long range rendering them useless and the rest of the army mostly defenseless once they've retreated. Without Paks or 222s Ostheer can't do anything against a well microd AA halftrack.
In which case I dont see how its a problem for them being force to spend 200mp and 20fu to "back-tech" for AT guns. If I went LT for US I need to spend 200mp and 35fu just to unlock the AT gun if I later decide I need it. Sovs spend 160mp (?) and 20 fu if they went t1 to do the same
28 Jun 2019, 18:21 PM
#20
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
In which case I dont see how its a problem for them being force to spend 200mp and 20fu to "back-tech" for AT guns. If I went LT for US I need to spend 200mp and 35fu just to unlock the AT gun if I later decide I need it. Sovs spend 160mp (?) and 20 fu if they went t1 to do the same
That is my point. AA Halftracks can counter these new T2 skip builds and force backteching or severe map control loss until Ostwind arrives. People just have to let go of their trusted builds (like T-70 rush) and adapt.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
93 | ||
|
|
|
|
0 | ||
 |
|
|
854 | ||
 |
|
|
44 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.623225.735+1
- 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
742 users are online:
742 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: 49147
Welcome our newest member, TalgatCoh
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, TalgatCoh
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM