AE are more of a alternative mainline that isn't good enough to actually be an alternative mainline. It doesn't have great engineering tools, as it can't build Green Cover (pretty much the #1 job of engineers). its repairing is superfluous in that commander, as every vehicle comes with built in repair teams.
That is probably because they where never designed as mainline infantry but as an engineer unit.
As for engineer tools they do bring plenty and unique things to USF like mines, flamers, cutters+2 weapons slots and "destroy cover" all of which are great tools for the USF and not available stock.
AEs are literally just not good enough to use as an alternative mainline, like Assault Grenadiers commonly are. Their high reinforcement cost and lack of closing tools makes them an iffy CQC unit and backline super engineer in a faction that has GOOD CQC units and has no need for powerful engineers outside the Pershing
Again they are an engineer unit and not a mainline infantry.
This gets REALLY BAD late game where CQC units get murdered by late game explosives and high veterancy units.
Reinforcement cost is one of the most important metrics of any combat unit, so with their high RC and bad closing they take disproportionate causalities, bleeding MP like crazy.
As I mentioned earlier, they need a reason to exist. Either give them a Pershing to support late game or make their CQC better. The easiest way to do that is adding a cheap sprint and cutting RC, like AG. Affordable, fast throwing smoke nades work too.
Really, replacing the M10 with the Pershing provides them something to work on once they become obsolete late game. The problem is the 240mm Howitzer Barrage would need review and maybe replacement (replace with White Phosphorus Barrage?) as putting an arty killing skill on a commander with a non-KT Heavy Tank is a big no-no.
I am not sure why post all that in response of my post or even in this thread since it is out of topic.
If you want to make suggestions about A.Eng or redesigning the commander, I suggest you start a separate thread about it.
What I can tell you for sure is that 5 men A.Eng with sprint and flamers is very bad suggestion.
6 PF are more expensive than A.Eng and comparing these two units does really say much for either unit.
Bleed is an important metric, it is just a delayed cost. That is why penals are not great late game, because you pay for using them way too much.
E.g. some guy buys cheap used BMW, but he has no idea, that he will have to invest more then its worth to get the car to a reasonable condition and especially the cost of maintaining that vehicle.
Same with units in COH2, it is all part of the cost and is instrumental part of unit's cost efficiency, in which PFs are clearly in the lead. So yes, they are more expensive and by more expensive I mean initial cost compounded with reinforce cost and conditions that unit is operating in.
If you want to claim A.Eng bleed more than PF write that instead of trying to correct me for saying they are cheaper than PF. 6 PF are simply more expensive and that is fact.
Yes, units are completely different, but they still eat up a slot in commander's roster, because there are USF commanders with rangers, paras and even cav rifles and I would get any of those guys over this totally "cheaper then PF" unit.
Does taking up a command slot has anything to do with their cost?
My oversight, still 5 reinforcements and MP price is even and it goes up from there + as I said CQC units bleed more, simply because the can't do afk dps from the cover.
295MP/80MU is more expensive than 280MP/(60MU) thus PF are more expensive than AE that is a simply fact.
So no, PFs are not more expensive no matter how you spin it.
...
The Cost of a unit and bleed are completely different metric so if someone is "spinning" words here that is you and not me.
Important thing here is that there is no reason in the first place, to compare PF, which is a alternative mainline infantry, with AE, which is a engineer unit.
AssEngies are 280mp/60muni 5men 7 popcap with 28 MP reinforce cost PanzerFus are 270mp/80Muni 6men 8 popcap with 25 MP reinforce cost
Pfusies are 0Cp, same with AssEngies. The only difference is the upgrade timing.
So they are not more expensive, if anything PFs are more cost efficient and better combat unit overall, while AssEngies is just a cqc squad with flamer with ability to place wire and mines, with occasional repair (because USF more often then not does not need auxiliary repair unit. PFs are a recon/mainline hybrid, with great moving dps. Also that reinforce cost is compounded by the fact that it is CQC unit and those units bleed more then typical midrange squads.
So PFs >> Assengies, imo
6 men G43 PF are 295/80 munition unit and thus they there ARE more expensive than Assault engineers in both MP and munition.
(I am not even sure if OP is talking about flamers for Assault engineers since there would be little reason to go point blank with it.)
6PF are not CP 0 call-in unit, they are buildable from HQ and require upgrade to get 6men which is also different than being a call-in unit.
Comparing these two units are not really helpful since they serve different roles.
This whole thread does not really serve any real purpose because the interaction of these units one vs the other does not really say much for either unit.
It seems more like an "my assault engineers rushed PF and lost" rant than anything else.
In a vacum from static positions. The avre is strong no doubt but within their respective factions the ST imo is a stronger unit imo. The ST is picked a lot more. But then again you dont see brits used a lot and maybe its used as much percentidge wise.
This thread is not about live but about the patch version. Both Avre and ST have receive changes so talking about how these unit currently perform in live is not very helpful.
Using the unit in preview mode and providing feedback in their "new" performance is much more helpful.
So if I read this correctly a CP 0 engineer unit can not walk in trough open ground and defeat a more expensive mid range infantry that has has been upgraded with a weapon.
And that is an issue because?
And why this point of this arbitrary comparison of two units that have little in common?
If one want to use Assault engineer in combat one can simply invest in weapons for them and get good result.
The unit is cost efficient and comes with lots of utility.
Imo instead of making it easier to destroy cover it should be harder to to spam cover and better tools to deal with cover.
Making cover harder to spam would make good map design more important.
Making certain tools like mortar better vs cover could create the need to create more specialized unit and adapt to counter the tools the enemy uses.
By making cover easier to hit one will simply be able to destroy cover with ATG and TDs from safety further reducing the need to use any other type of unit.
40mm Bofors AA Emplacement
Population from 8 to 6
These type of change should be limited to commander that rely on emplacement.
If UKF need a cheaper AA units I would suggest a different root. Make the AA with lower pop or even cheaper but allow only AA mode.
Then offer an upgrade that allows the weapon to engage ground targets increasing pop.
British Assault Officer
The unit is simply buffed through the roof.
I would suggest that unit cost reduced further possibly to 240 but it fighting capability is also decreased. In the current implementation the units combines great fighting power (better or similar to doctrinal officer) while also providing great utility.
Churchill AVRE
The "wipe machine" design of these units is simply bad.
My suggestion would be to hard cap max causalities by unit and adding more utility.
In addition reduce the abnormal acceleration and rotation of these units.
MG dps could be increased.
Churchill Mk VII Infantry Tank
Reduce the abnormal acceleration and rotation of these units.
Assault Artillery
The combination of A.A. and JT should be avoided in my opinion.
Sturmtiger
As for AVRE imo a hard cap should be introduced and more utility added.
MG dps could be increased.
Imo the unit should be move to different commander.
Ostruppen
The grenadier ver2 design is simply bad.
Imo the unit need a new design offering more utility and fighting power. That could include:
light AT design with At rifles
more utility like re-crewing weapons or having molotov
and so on
203mm B-4 Howitzer
Suppression should simply be removed. It forces retreats or dooms units if fired on retreat point.
If there is a need for it there could be a new critical.
The unit could also see a change in design that make it more distinct from the ML-20
Major
So the unit will now be able to scout enemy unit, use smoke grenades and then call barrage on enemy line while still being able to call stock reckon planes?
Imo the change is a step in the wrong direction for a dirty cheap unit.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
